Tunguskas .. Oh no not that again...

[GGTharos]

No, what I'm talking about was always there.

 

The ability to target missiles was added with good reason; this is just an artifact of programmatic limitation and quite frankly I don't care to see it go away until AI evasion techniques and more complex AI and missile sensors are modelled.

It isn't miraculous anyway, just grossy exaggerated in some cases, and just right or in fact underrated in others ... it's a programmatic limitation, like I said.

[S77th-GOYA]

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.

 

So now you agree that these Tungs are fantasy in at least one aspect. You just now came to this conclusion? The question has never been about how to get your mavs through to the target, but rather should Tungs be killing Mavs at all. All evidence presented points to no, they should not. That is the only salient point. You have asked for my research. SK's is good enough for me. You have yet to present any of your own except for a different SAM system. If you don't have any, why not just say so?

[SwingKid]

So now you agree that these Tungs are fantasy in at least one aspect. You just now came to this conclusion?

 

To be fair, there was a time when I thought Shilkas should be shooting back against Mavericks... The game just seemed to easy with 100% effective missiles in Flanker 2.

 

How about ground vehicles that pop smoke to disrupt optical tracking?

 

Except, I don't think AD vehicles carry these... just tanks and IFVs?

 

-SK

[GGTharos]

I'm going to say this once GOYA:

 

It's a question that YOU certainly can't answer, so I suggest you let us beat on it and see what we come up with intead of picking and choosing the bits of info which support just your part of the story and throwing out the rest.

 

Now, you were right, and the pk is too high insome cases, and relatively too low in others. I've done more checking than just your tunguska problem and interesting things will hopefully come of it - but probably not in 1.12.

 

SK: I don't know let's find some pictures and see if they're packing smoke cannisters. I was under the impression that any high-value vehicle would be equipped with a smoke generator at least if not smoke grenades.

Plus they're missing other defensive measures like radar blinking, datalinks and turning radar on at the last moment etc.

[S77th-GOYA]

To be fair, there was a time when I thought Shilkas should be shooting back against Mavericks... The game just seemed to easy with 100% effective missiles in Flanker 2.

 

How about ground vehicles that pop smoke to disrupt optical tracking?

 

Except, I don't think AD vehicles carry these... just tanks and IFVs?

 

-SK

 

I've got no problems with any defensive efforts that ground units might take, including SAMs shutting down their radars. What I have a problem with is fixing an unrealistic aspect of the game with another unrealistic aspect. There are too many of those as it is. Why not add a margin of error in the Mavs? Time/money?

[GGTharos]

Fair question.

 

Basically, because you'd then have to do it for all missiles and rewrite a lot of the missile code - so primarily time - otherwise it would have already been done.

 

AD vehicles employing defensive tactics - again, probably major AI rewrite.

 

By the way, mavs can and do miss, albeit not too often. Adding even more would ALSO be unrealistic as hitting ground targets with a homing weapon isn't a matter of steering but a matter of seeker capability to keep lock.

Also, removing this capability from missiles, again, makes the ones that ARE supposed to be able to do it, unable to do it. So either way it isn't realistic. However, I'm all for less-than-sitting-ducks SAMs.

[S77th-GOYA]

I'm going to say this once:

 

It's a question that YOU certainly can't answer, so I suggest you let us beat on it and see what we come up with intead of picking and choosing the bits of info which support just your part of the story and throwing out the rest.

 

Now, you were right, and the pk is too high insome cases, and relatively too low in others. I've done more checking than just your tunguska problem.

 

Rather than respond to that, I'll continue to wait for your data.

[EvilBivol-1]

Gift for EvilBivol to translate:

Thanks for thinking of me... :icon_roll

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.

Being in school at the moment, I was only able to skim your material (thanks for that as well), but I didn't see anything about the failure to engage ATGMs themselves. Simply the failure to react in time to a sudden threat, such as a pop-up helicopter group employing ATGMs, and also the range limitation. As far as I could tell (and again, maybe I missed it), the problem lay mainly in the slow reaction time and limited independed functionality. But the entire idea behind the Tunguska is to improve upon these two factors. According to the articles, this was achieved with enough success to ensure defense against attack choppers in the day-time. This was further improved in the Pantsir, which also introduced a more lethal missile, an IR channel, and a more accurate guidence system to increase the Pk against missile-type targets.

 

But does any of that necessarily mean that a Tunguska is unable to fire against a Mav? Before you quote this (:)), it makes sense that a missile intercept is unlikely due to the limitations of the optical channel, while a guns intercept is unlikely due to radar guidence limitations. Question is, just how unlikely? And also, how is Kashtan's radar better equipped for this? If the radar is so incapabale of providing accurate data to the guns, how does the missile-less system defend the ships at night?

[SwingKid]

...but I didn't see anything about the failure to engage ATGMs themselves. Simply the failure to react in time to a sudden threat, such as a pop-up helicopter group employing ATGMs, and also the range limitation.

 

 

 

I'm not sure how to respond to this, since it seems to suggest that an ATGM is a longer-duration threat than the heliopter that launched it. If the Shilka can't react in time to a pop-up helicopter that needs to stay in view to provide guidance to its ATGM, then it should go without saying that it doesn't have time to react to the ATGM itself.

 

http://www.gruntonline.com/Order%20of%20Battle/PAVN/PAVN_armour3.htm

"The firing cycle took about six seconds from initial target acquisition to radar track lockon, but US tests of captured ZSU-23-4 Shilkas supplied by Israel found that the time from acquisition to actual firing took 20-30 seconds for an average crew."

 

 

 

Page 14 (speaking about Shilka):

"К началу 1970-х гг. вооруженные противотанковыми ракетами вертолеты американского производства наглядно продемонстрировали свои возможности...

Анализ показал, что ни одно из зенитиых средств Советской Армии не может успешно противостоять боевым вертолетам."

 

In the early 70s, American-built combat helicopters armed with ATGMs clearly demonstrated their capabilities...

The analysis revealed that not a single one of the Soviet Army AAA systems could defend against (such) combat helicopters.

 

 

 

Page 15 (speaking about Tunguska):

"В дуельной ситуации поединка боевого вертолета с зенитным комплексом... все зависит от того, чья ракета раньше долетит до противника и, поразив его, сорвет наведение вражеской ракеты."

 

In a duel situation between a combat helicopter and the air defense system... everything depends on whose missile hits the enemy first and, destroying it, thereby breaks the guidance of the enemy missile.

 

 

 

Page 19 (speaking about Pantsyr):

"В отличие от 'Тунгуски', создававшейся в первую очередь как средство борбы с боевыми вертолетами противника, 'Панцирь-С1' разрабатывался исходя из других задач - прикрития от воздействия высокоточного оружия..."

 

In contrast to the "Tunguska", which was created primarily to combat enemy helicopters, the "Pantsyr-S1" was designed to perform different tasks, including defense against precision-guided munitions...

 

 

 

This was further improved in the Pantsir, which also introduced a more lethal missile, an IR channel, and a more accurate guidence system to increase the Pk against missile-type targets.

 

The text provides the Pk of Pantsyr against missile-type targets, but I can't find the corresponding value for Tunguska. There is however provided a description of the Tunguska tracking radar precision:

 

 

 

"Разрешающая способность станции и ее среднеквадратические ошибки сопровожения цели были, соответственно, не хуже 75 м и 2 м по дальности и 2 град. и 2 д.у. по угловым координатам."

 

Maybe you can help me here:

 

The (tracking radar's) resolution and tracking mean square errors are 75 m and 2 m in range and 2 degrees and 2 [d.u.?] in azimuth/elevation.

 

What's a "d.u." - is it like "mils"? How can they measure range to the nearest 75 m, yet have a measurement error of only 2 m? :confused:

 

-SK

[EvilBivol-1]

I think "д.у." may reffer to "деления угломера", which I'm guessing is "minutes". The direct translation would be "divisions of the angle-measurer." Unfortunately, my understanding of all things physics is bad enough in English, not to mention Russian.

 

Working on the rest...

[EvilBivol-1]

For clarification on my earlier point,

 

If I understand you correctly, your argument was that the Tunguska is unable to engage incoming missiles with guns due to radar-guidence limitations/inaccuracies. You then pointed to the above articles as evidence. But, as far as I can tell, they don't say anything about guidence problems. They only talk about reaction time and range problems, and even at that, in reference ot the Shilka. Both, the reaction time and range were improved in the Tunguska. The only remaining question then, is tracking radar accuracy. Is it accurate enough to guide the guns onto an incoming missile? Or, do you doubt the reaction time and range combination of the Tunguska as being adequate in order to engage a Mav?

 

The articles do provide the tracking radar information for the Tunguska. Problem is, we need you to make sense of them. Two meter error would seem negligible, considering the wall of steel those guns put up. I'm not sure what to make of the 75 meter resolution. As a minor note, it does say "no worse" than 75 meters. So, theoretically, it could be much smaller. :)

 

And for extra toppings, I was curios about those missile-less Kortik systems you had pointed to earlier. If the radars are in fact unable to successfully engage incoming missiles, how do the Kortiks protect the ship at night, when their optical channel is useless and they have no missiles? Or, are their radar suites better equipped for this? If so, how?

[Yellonet]

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.

A pretty good argument, and to give Jane's some cred, the capability against ground units were shown in a video, although that was the 2S6M.

But afterall, the Maverick is quite large so it might show up on radar.

It travels in a straight line which makes spotting it easier once you've got a clue to where it is.

The Tunguskas missiles have proximity fuzes so you'd have to miss with a large margin to be unsuccessful.

 

And maybe Tunguska's aren't meant to take down ASM's but the crew in LockOn just might be very good at what they do... ever think about that? ;)

[EvilBivol-1]

you'd have to miss with a large margin to be unsuccessful.

 

5 meters, as I learned today. :D

[Yellonet]

5 meters, as I learned today. :D

Question is, how effective is the fragmentation at that range against a small target as a missile?

Anyway, you shouldn't have to miss a non manuevering target by that much.

[EvilBivol-1]

Well, the problem with the Tunguska is that it requires the use of optics to track the target when engaging it with missiles. In the non -M1 versions, these optics are manipulated by the operator. This would seem to make it nearly impossible to successfully engane a small target like a Mav.

 

That's why my thoughts are that if anything, it would do it with a volley of gun rounds, in the same way that a Phalanx system would. Because to engage with guns, it does not need to use optics, only the radars. But, trouble-maker Swingkid over here is saying (unless I'm misunderstanding) that the Tunguska's tracking radar would have touble tracking a target such as a Mav accurately enough to engage it with guns. In addition to that, there is also the question of reaction time and range.

 

And that's what I'm trying to pile through right now...

[jj_pt]

Well, the problem with the Tunguska is that it requires the use of optics to track the target when engaging it with missiles. In the non -M1 versions, these optics are manipulated by the operator. This would seem to make it nearly impossible to successfully engane a small target like a Mav.

 

Wouldn't the high fire-rate compensate that?

[Krendel]

I don't understand why are you guys talking about Pantsyr as whole different and seperate system.It is a module that can be mounted on different platforms incuding Tunguska.If you have some doubts go to http://www.shipunov.com/rus/zencom/panzr.htm .If you don't understand russian just look at the pictures

[Alfa]

I don't understand why are you guys are talking about Pantsyr as whole different and seperate system.It is a module that can be mounted on different platforms incuding Tunguska.If you have some doubts go to http://www.shipunov.com/rus/zencom/panzr.htm .If you don't understand russian just look at the pictures

 

Because there is room for confusion Krendel :) . Different sources are stating different missiles and guns for "the" Tunguska and Pantsyr. However, as EvilBivol mentioned, other sources seem to indicate that the realised Pantsyr isnt as different to the Tunguska as first indicated.

 

Furthermore, I think some of the confusion is due to something already indicated by GGtharos ;) ...

 

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

 

The initial Tunguska and Kashtan systems were developed and inducted in the late 80´ies/early 90´ies, while the Pantsyr is a later development IIRC developed in the late 90´ies. Both the Tunguska and Kashtan were upgraded around the same time, and from varies accounts I have read on these, it seems that many of the things Swingkid listed as differences between Pantsyr and Tunguska, really has more to do with difference in age rather than design philosophy.

 

Examples:

 

Max missile engagement range of Tunguska/Kashtan was increased from ~8 km to 10-12 km with the Tunguska-M and Kashtan-M, which corresponds to the 12 km stated for the Pantsyr.

 

I also seem to remember reading about a switch from laser- to radio proximity fuse with the 9M311-M for the Kashtan-M. Several sources also indicate that the combat modules of the Kashtan system use a combination of radar/TV for target acqusition, but use laser-beam-riding for missile guidance(similar to the Vikhr).

 

Anyway, I will go through the articles I have on this and see if I can dig out some more information.

 

Cheers,

- JJ.

[Krendel]

Tunguska-M1(9M311M missile) has radio-proximity fuze and increased range

Tunguska and Pantsyr use different missile(9m311 and 57e6),but same gun.

[SwingKid]

Well, the problem with the Tunguska is that it requires the use of optics to track the target when engaging it with missiles. In the non -M1 versions, these optics are manipulated by the operator. This would seem to make it nearly impossible to successfully engane a small target like a Mav.

 

Agreed...

 

That's why my thoughts are that if anything, it would do it with a volley of gun rounds, in the same way that a Phalanx system would. Because to engage with guns, it does not need to use optics, only the radars. But, trouble-maker Swingkid over here is saying (unless I'm misunderstanding) that the Tunguska's tracking radar would have touble tracking a target such as a Mav accurately enough to engage it with guns. In addition to that, there is also the question of reaction time and range.

 

Hmm, I think we miscommunicated somewhere.

 

Throughout this discussion, I've been trying to focus on SAMs, and the insufficient precision of SACLOS guidance.

 

As far as concerns guns, that's a different issue we haven't fully explored. My opinion would be:

 

(a) Shilka has no capability against AGMs because of its ~20 s reaction time,

(b) Tunguska and naval Kortik guns have reaction time of ~8 s, so they can engage the weapon only after it has been detected for this amount of time,

© Tunguska guns should have 2/3 the Pk of Kortik guns, because of reduced rate of fire.

 

The only part I'm not sure about is how smoothly the Tunguska can switch from optical tracking at missile range, to suddenly dropping the missile guidance and rotating the radar over to track the guns on the target instead. With an 8 s reaction time to lock and fire guns against an incoming target, it would seem to leave no surplus leisure time for guiding the missiles at all... The Tunguska should be trying to lock its guns onto the target long before it actually enters guns range. So, I suspect the system has to choose whether it will use missiles or guns at the beginning of each target engagement, rather than using both as the target passes through one envelope to the other.

 

-SK

[GGTharos]

Actually optical tracking of an INCOMING mav shouldn't be too hard - maybe seeing it would be an issue, I don't know if the EO has zoom available.

 

But the LOS rate would be slow enough, IMHO, against an incoming mav. A crossing one is a different story.

[SwingKid]

Actually optical tracking of an INCOMING mav shouldn't be too hard...

 

Source?

 

-SK

[MBot]

Why does the Tunguska operator needs to put the target sight manualy on target, why can't this be slaved to the radar lock ?

I understand that the sight needs to point on the target in order to guide the missile ( optical command guideance ). Shouldn't it be possible to point the sight automaticaly on the radar target ? This would also make the system night capable, as there is no need to actualy see the target itselfe as long as the sight points on it by radar and the position light/flare in the back of the missle should be visible even at night.

[S77th-konkussion]

Actually optical tracking of an INCOMING mav shouldn't be too hard - maybe seeing it would be an issue, I don't know if the EO has zoom available.

 

But the LOS rate would be slow enough, IMHO, against an incoming mav. A crossing one is a different story.

 

I'm not picking at you GG, but that first part confuses me. Optical tracking- be it IR or whatever- means you have to be able to see it (?)

 

 

I would almost lend creedence to an operator seeing the sudden flash & heat of the launch as it releases from the aircraft he is watching anyway. But- if he wasn't fortunate enough to catch that very moment- in about 10 seconds he's buttered toast. Even with those very best of circumstances- there is still no evidence presented that the the vehicle can track the missile using any method.

 

Personally- I accept a SMALL possibility of a successful takedown of a maverick in the most carefully choreographed & staged test, where every detail of this test was fully briefed to all parties.

 

The salaries of the Tung crew participating would likely bankrupt about 2/3 of the civilised world. "You vant me too doo whaaat?" :biggrin:

[Yellonet]

Source?

 

-SK

In Soviet Russia the source have you.

 

But seriously, if you know where to look, shouldn't you be able to see an incoming Mav a few kilometers away?