Tunguskas .. Oh no not that again...

[Whisper]

Tung alone, no radar, EWR?

Cause I was doing exactly the same, and got a completely different result. 100% was with max skilled Tung and radar

[Yellonet]

Tung alone, no radar, EWR?

Cause I was doing exactly the same, and got a completely different result. 100% was with max skilled Tung and radar

Only a Tung, nothing else. I was also careful that I made each test as identical as possible.

[Ironhand]

As far as I can tell, it's the missile slider, not skill level of the Tunguska, that contributes to the Tunguska's effectiveness. I haven't tested this into oblivion, though. And I don't intend to.

 

In order to make sense of your results, be careful of generalizing from limited experiments. When I created the missile tables for Flanker 2, I had to run 100 samples of each condition before I could trust the results. That's a far cry from the 5 or 10 samples many of you are basing conclusions on. I remember one instance--I think it was an R-73--that tagged the a/c 4 out of the first 10 times. Had i stopped there I would have concluded a 40% kill probability. But there was not a single additional hit for the next 90 trials. It's kill probablitity in the situation being tested was actually 4%. A big difference.

 

So be careful what you conclude from limited trial runs. It'll save a lot of arguing.

 

Rich

[Alfa]

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

 

Ok I see.

 

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.

 

I think we will just have to agree to disagree on that last statement :icon_wink .

 

Fair question though, their mistake.

 

Yes there definately was some mixing-up going on there :)

 

Cheers,

- JJ.

[Yellonet]

As far as I can tell, it's the missile slider, not skill level of the Tunguska, that contributes to the Tunguska's effectiveness. I haven't tested this into oblivion, though. And I don't intend to.

 

In order to make sense of your results, be careful of generalizing from limited experiments. When I created the missile tables for Flanker 2, I had to run 100 samples of each condition before I could trust the results. That's a far cry from the 5 or 10 samples many of you are basing conclusions on. I remember one instance--I think it was an R-73--that tagged the a/c 4 out of the first 10 times. Had i stopped there I would have concluded a 40% kill probability. But there was not a single additional hit for the next 90 trials. It's kill probablitity in the situation being tested was actually 4%. A big difference.

 

So be careful what you conclude from limited trial runs. It'll save a lot of arguing.

 

Rich

It's true that I only made a small test, but for something to happen six times in a row it has to have a pretty high probability. And basically every time I meet a Tung it shoots down the incoming missile if it is the only thing it can see.

 

Your example with the R-73, that it happened 4 times in ten and then not in 90 tries... the probability of that must be infinitely small, are you sure you conducted the test the same way every time?

[Ironhand]

... the probability of that must be infinitely small, are you sure you conducted the test the same way every time?

Yes

[SwingKid]

Alfa,

 

In regards to the SA-N-11 "Kortik"/"Kashtan" naval system,

 

Do you have any information that the SAM plays an actual anti-missile CIWS role, besides the coincidence that it employs the same search radar as the guns? I don't have any information to back this up.

 

For example, when the system is installed on small ships that have no other SAMs on board, then the Kortik seems to be fitted with missiles. But on larger ships like Peter the Great, that have more space and are already equipped with longer-ranged SAMs of their own, the Kortik CIWS seems to be set up as a gun-only system, with no missile launch tubes at all:

 

http://www.warships.ru/Russia/Weapons/Guns/Kortik/

http://pvo.guns.ru/naval/kortik_photo.htm

 

Why would they remove the Tunguska SAMs from the higher-value assets, resulting in a shorter-range, guns-only CIWS, if the missiles were making a contribution?

 

-SK

[Force_Feedback]

Alfa,

 

Why would they remove the Tunguska SAMs, if they played any CIWS role?

 

-SK

 

Money? Lack of supply of missile containers?

 

EDIT: I just read the text, and it said that construction of the Kortik CIWS system has stopped in 1994, this can explain why some Kortiks are without missiles

[SwingKid]

Money? Lack of supply of missile containers?

 

Rephrased: Why are FACs worth protecting with money and anti-missile missile containers, when capital ships of the blue-water navy are not?

 

-SK

[EvilBivol-1]

Are we ignoring the Tunguska's guns as a possible means of killing incoming missiles for a reason?

[S77th-GOYA]

I'm ignoring it because I have yet to see the guns get a kill in game.

[SwingKid]

Are we ignoring the Tunguska's guns as a possible means of killing incoming missiles for a reason?

 

The designers apparently considered Tunguska's guns ineffective for this task, so they replaced them with new guns that fire more than twice as many rounds per minute for the Kortik CIWS.

 

The only thing that's the same between Kortik/Kashtan and Tunguska (and thus relevant to the argument whether Kortik's CIWS performance is evidence of what Tunguska can do) is the missile. But as we see, even that is often left out.

 

So, the evidence that Tunguska has any capability to shoot down missiles in real life is, IMHO, none.

 

-SK

[Yellonet]

Yes

Ok... but shouldn't those 4 be considered as exceptions and not count? Maybe if you'd made ten more tests there wouldn't have been a single hit in 100 tests straight.

 

Oh, well. You're the tester, not I.

[S77th-GOYA]

So, the evidence that Tunguska has any capability to shoot down missiles in real life is, IMHO, none.

 

More than that. The evidence you've provided supports the argument that Tungs can NOT shoot down missles in real life.

 

Where were you when the decision to implement this was being debated? Or were you just overruled?

[Force_Feedback]

Also, the pvo.ru site states that the system is modular, and can have up to 6 modules, the lay-out of the system is tailored to the type of ship it needs to protect. That may be the explanation why some of them lack missiles.

[Alfa]

Alfa,

 

In regards to the SA-N-11 "Kortik"/"Kashtan" naval system,

 

Do you have any information that the SAM plays an actual anti-missile CIWS role, besides that it employs the same radar as the gun component? I don't have any information to back this up.

 

For example, when the system is installed on small ships that have no other SAMs on board, then the Kortik seems to be fitted with missiles. But on larger ships like Peter the Great, that have more space and are already equipped with longer-ranged SAMs of their own, the Kortik CIWS seems to be set up as a gun-only system, with no missile launch tubes at all:

 

]

]

 

Why would they remove the Tunguska SAMs, if they played any CIWS role?

 

-SK

 

Andrew,

 

That is a very quickly derrived theory - isnt it? :biggrin:

 

For a start you could alternatively ask why they decided to replace the AK-630s and install the Kashtan system instead onboard the Admiral Nakhimov and Pyotr Velikiy(the two earlier vessels had AK-630s) if the missile component of this was deemed unnecessary.

 

Secondly, the only Russian warship currently in service combining long range SAM capability with the Kashtan system is exactly the Pyotr Velikiy - meaning that you cannot derrive any general rule based on whether the 9M311 missile canisters are seen removed(perhaps temporarily) on photos of its Kasthan systems.

 

Third, the Rif system is useless for close-in AD as its minimum engagement range is 7 kilometers, which BTW corresponds roughly to the maximum engagement range of the Kashtan´s missile component.

 

Fourth, most major surface combatants - such as the Pr. 1144.2 ("Pyotr Velikiy"), the Pr 1155.1 ("Admiral Chabanenko") and Pr. 1154 ("Neustrashimy") employing the Kashtan system all employ the Klinok system(naval version of Tor) as well - which is a far more useful system than the Rif in terms of close-in AD and as such would be a better bet as an alternative to the Kashtan´s missile component - yet photos I have of both the Admiral Chabanenko and Neustrashimy show the 9M311 missile canisters in place on their Kashtan systems.

 

Cheers,

- JJ.

[SwingKid]

More than that. The evidence you've provided supports the argument that Tungs can NOT shoot down missles in real life.

 

And there's more where that came from!

 

Where were you when the decision to implement this was being debated? Or were you just overruled?

 

No comment.

 

You can PM, or you can draw own conclusions.

 

-SK

[EvilBivol-1]

And Fifth... :D

 

A design *objective* to defend against incoming volleys of low flying anti-ship missiles is very different from an almost incidental capability of knocking down a single incoming maverick. Meaning, of couse the naval system used different guns...

[Guest ruggbutt]

The best shooting I've seen from 2 Tungs side by side (to help defend each other) is 50% when the slider is at 50%. Then again I dropped to low above the ground and got the lock at 8km. I waited till I was in their engagement zone and fired one mav at each of them. The lower you are the longer it takes them to fire on you. Then I put them on my 9 o'clock and I pulled altitude. I wanted them to shoot at me so they'd ignore the mavs. It works sometimes and I don't worry much about the SAMs. Actually the only SAMs that bother me are the ones that I don't know are there. Tungs are set to excellent btw.

 

Anyhow, if you can get the Tung to fire at you while your Mav is inbound you can almost guarantee a dead Tung.

[Ironhand]

Ok... but shouldn't those 4 be considered as exceptions and not count? Maybe if you'd made ten more tests there wouldn't have been a single hit in 100 tests straight.

That would not be objective testing. I'd be skewing the results to get the outcome I expected. In short, those 4 hits happened. You don't pretend they didn't and remain objective. BTW, similar patterns occured, though not to the same degree, with other missiles as well.

 

And, FWIW, I've been involved with testing (not beta testing sims) enough in the past that I've learned to distrust extremely small samples.

 

Rich

[Ironhand]

I'm ignoring it because I have yet to see the guns get a kill in game.

I've seen it happen against Kh-58s. The Tunguska would fire at the last possible instant with guns and kill it. No launch from the Tunguska. Give it a try.

 

BTW, this was the only missile to arrive at the target with a higher terminal speed that was targeted. It was the exception to the speed rule.

 

Rich

[Alfa]

And Fifth... :D

 

A design *objective* to defend against incoming volleys of low flying anti-ship missiles is very different from an almost incidental capability of knocking down a single incoming maverick. Meaning, of couse the naval system used different guns...

 

More specifically a water cooled version of the Gsh-6-30 six barrel 30mm gatling gun - with a firing rate of 5000-6000 rounds per minute per barrel cluster(!). Additionally the water cooling allows bursts of up to 4 seconds duration.

 

In this connection I am a little baffled about Swingkids reasoning. First he claims that the Pantsir was developed specifically for an added missile interception capability, which according to him, the Tunguska doesnt have. Now the guns of the Pantsir have a combined firing rate of some 1400 rds/min versus some 5000 rds/min of the Tunguska.

 

Then he claims that anti-missile capability of the Kashtan system is all down to the higher firing rate("almost twice") of the Kashtan guns versus that of the Tunguska and has nothing to do with missiles - surely if this was the case the Pantsyr guns would also have a higher firing rate than those of the Tunguska.....or what? :)

 

Cheers,

- JJ.

[SwingKid]

And Fifth... :D

 

A design *objective* to defend against incoming volleys of low flying anti-ship missiles is very different from an almost incidental capability of knocking down a single incoming maverick. Meaning, of couse the naval system used different guns...

 

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.

 

(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.

 

(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.

 

© 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!)

 

(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.

 

(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.

 

(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.

 

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

[EvilBivol-1]

In this connection I am a little baffled about Swingkids reasoning.

 

I don't know, but you have no idea how glad I am not to be alone against him... LOL :D

 

In truth, I think this argument has become overextended. The optical guidence channel of the Tunguska (which I didn't know about until your link SK, so thank you), does seem to rule out effective engagement of incoming missiles. In the Kortik/Kashtan, this channel is automated, so it may be more effective, but in the Tuguska, at least in the standard/M versions, it is manually controlled. That would leave only the guns. I don't know either way, of course, but before I go on, let me go ahead and read SK's latest post above.... :)

[MBot]

... remember, reaction time is already 'built in' ...

 

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.