Tunguskas .. Oh no not that again...

[Manny]

You guys have hijacked my thread!!!!111:icon_evil

 

The question is can a Tunguska engage surface to surface?

 

Bahh who cares, the real question is can it engage a Maverick.

 

Consider the following:

 

The SA-19 GRISOM (9M111) is a radar command guided, two-stage surface to air missile mounted on the 2S6 Integrated Air Defense System.

 

The 2S6 vehicle is fitted with two banks of four missiles in blocks of two, which can be elevated vertically independent of each other. The SA-19 can engage aerial targets moving at a maximum speed of 500 meters/second at altitudes ranging from 15 to 3,500 meters, and at slant ranges from 2400 to 8000 meters.

 

The missile's high-explosive fragmentation warhead is actuated by a proximity fuse if the missile passes within 5 meters of the target. The SA-19 is supported by the HOT SHOT radar system, which consists of a surveillance radar with a maximum range of 18 km, and a tracking radar with a maximum range of 13 km.

 

The semi-automatic radar to command line-of-sight engagement requires the gunner to track the target using the roof-mounted stabilized optical sight. The SA-19 is claimed to have a kill probability of 0.65.

Specifications

 

Chassis:Ural-53234 8 x 8 truckCrew3Armament12 57E6 SAMs, 2 2A72 30 mm gunsMissileGuidance systemradio commands with IR or radio direction findingMaximum speed1,100 m/secTime of flight to 10 km range14 secWeightWith container90 kgLaunch weight65 kgContainer diameter170 mmLength in container3.2 mWarhead type:fragmentation rodWarhead weight16 kgGunCalibre30 mmTotal rate of fire700 rds per minuteMuzzle velocity960 m/secProjectile weight0.97 kgAmmunition load750 roundsRadarRange, with target reflection surface of 2-3 sq cmTarget detectionat least 30 kmTarget trackingat least 24 kmKill zoneMissilesRange1,000 to 12,000 mAltitude5 - 8,000 mGunsRange0.2 - 4,000 mAltitude0 - 3,000 mNumber of simultaneously engaged targets2Number of targets handled per minute10 - 12Reaction time5 - 6 sec

Reference: http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/row/sa-19.htm

 

Also, consider this:

 

The 2S6 vehicle carries two radars collectively known to NATO as "Hot Shot":

• 1RL144 E-band target acquisition radar with a maximum detection range of 20 km (12 miles)
  
• 1RL144M J-band target tracking radar with a maximum engagement range of 18 km (11 miles)

It also incorporates the 1RL138 C/D-band IFF system and an optical tracking system. The 2S6 is able to use these systems to guide missiles to the target using radio command guidance in combination with automatic optical target tracking, or can feed the data into the fire control computer for aiming the guns, which consist of a four-barreled, high rate-of-fire (700 rounds-per-minute combined) 30mm cannon battery. The missiles are detonated using a proximity system when they are within 5 m (16 ft) of their target and have a kill probability (PK) of around 65%. Note that missiles can only be fired while the 2S6 system is stationary and due to the optical tracking method have extremely limited viability at night.

 

There is much information out there regarding the Tunguska that one can shake at the tunguska vs. Maverisk discussion but true data is when, during a war, a Tunguska actually engages a Maverick and destroys it.

 

Perhaps it wil not be the crew but someone with visual acuity to the A-10 that releases the missile from altitude and observes its' contrail alerting the Tung crew that has already identified the A-10 and can now optically track the Mav.

[S77th-GOYA]

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?

 

The Maverick has a diameter of 1 foot. At a few kilometers, I would say that it would be very difficult without substantial magnification.

[D-Scythe]

The Maverick has a diameter of 1 foot. At a few kilometers, I would say that it would be very difficult without substantial magnification.

 

There is the smoke from the rocket - this plus the fact that the Tunguska probably knows where the launching a/c is (plus glint, plus bright blue sky background) should ease acquisition.

 

Whether the Tunguska can hit the Mav is the real question.

[Force_Feedback]

No country that has the Tunguska in service will put it out there alone, and let it wait until the A-10s/AH-1/Preds/AH-64/S-60/F-16/F-18/F-15e come.

 

The Tunguska kan engage such targets, and it does in lomac, and the success rate is low in lomac as well, so I don't see why the performance of the PAC-2 or S-300pmu is less realistic in lomac. (in 1.2 we'll get WAFM, so then things will really get interesting)

[Trident]

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.

 

The raison d'être for the EOS system is likely to be ECCM, i.e. the 2S6 was probably designed with the expectation that it would not be able to use it's radar effectively in a large percentage of engagements. I do not claim to know this for fact though, but ECCM is touted as one of the major advantages of the Tunguska's EOS. Nevertheless, it IS a curious question (it would help a lot against missiles and a small A/G missile won't be jamming).

[Force_Feedback]

There is the smoke from the rocket - this plus the fact that the Tunguska probably knows where the launching a/c is (plus glint, plus bright blue sky background) should ease acquisition.

 

Whether the Tunguska can hit the Mav is the real question.

 

It's not like the Mav has an evasive flight path like ASMs :o

[Wags]

...and the AGM-84A and AGM-84E are only 13 inches across, yet the system is advertised as being able to engage ALCM systems.

 

-Matt

 

The Maverick has a diameter of 1 foot. At a few kilometers, I would say that it would be very difficult without substantial magnification.

[S77th-GOYA]

There is the smoke from the rocket - this plus the fact that the Tunguska probably knows where the launching a/c is (plus glint, plus bright blue sky background) should ease acquisition.

 

Whether the Tunguska can hit the Mav is the real question.

 

 

The AGM-65D was also the first variant to be produced with a new reduced-smoke Thiokol TX-633 (SR114-TC-1) motor (alternative motor was an Aerojet SR115-AJ-1) in the WPU-4/B propulsion section.

 

http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-65.html

 

What about overcast or if there happens to be a cloud behind the Hog?

 

How easy would it be to track after the motor burns out from a few km?

(Assuming the smoke is still easily visible with the reduced smoke motor.)

[Guest ruggbutt]

Watch the tracks I posted, all the Tungs are belong to me. :D

[D-Scythe]

http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-65.html

 

What about overcast or if there happens to be a cloud behind the Hog?

 

How easy would it be to track after the motor burns out from a few km?

(Assuming the smoke is still easily visible with the reduced smoke motor.)

 

AGM-65D:

 

AGM-65E:

 

Reduced smoke doesn't mean it's invisible, and would be especially visible from lower aspects as it makes the smoke trail appear denser. Plus, it's also a blue sky background, so it would also be darker than the surrounding sky, and the smoke is also moving, whereas the sky is not, etc. etc.

 

And I imagine it would be relatively easy to track after acquisition, provided the operator has enough skill to keep it within the system's FOV.

 

And if there was overcast, it's likely the Hog wouldn't be launching a Mav from any range greater than 5 km.

[S77th-konkussion]

This is a shot at release where all hell is breaking loose. Certainly noticeable- especially against a clear blue sky backdrop. Once that huge flame goes out only few seconds later- different story.

[S77th-GOYA]

...and the AGM-84A and AGM-84E are only 13 inches across, yet the system is advertised as being able to engage ALCM systems.

 

-Matt

 

Is it advertised as being able to engage all ALCM systems?

 

Besides the fact that a cruise missle will likely be identified and tracked from further out than the launch of the Maverick. Added to that the initial speed of the launched Maverick would be much faster than the cruise missle as it entered the engagement area. Terminal speeds might be similar, but when it counts, the Maverick is supersonic.

[GGTharos]

It's onl slightly faster than the Harpoon, and only at launch. It only slows down going forward ... regardless, the engagement metric you want to look at here is the Time of Flight.

 

With a time of flight of 50 seconds, you BET it can be spotted and fired on.

[S77th-GOYA]

Just for fun, I'm going to try to lock a launched Mav-D coming toward me with another my own Mav-D. Anybody wanna take bets?

[Yellonet]

Just for fun, I'm going to try to lock a launched Mav-D coming toward me with another my own Mav-D. Anybody wanna take bets?

I don't think that the game is made to let that work... and would the missile be a good enough heat source? It should be quite cool from flying through the air.. or is it going fast enough to be heated by the friction?

[GGTharos]

We have a rocket, probably a thermal battery, and the seeker cooler (which itself radiates heat) or potentnially a very cold nose ... which generates contrast, which is what you need with a maverick. ;)

 

Now on the other hand, that weapon is designed for hitting ground vehicles, not small targets moving at 100's of m/s ... that job is left to SAMs and AAMs.

[Yellonet]

We have a rocket, probably a thermal battery, and the seeker cooler (which itself radiates heat) or potentnially a very cold nose ... which generates contrast, which is what you need with a maverick. ;)

 

Now on the other hand, that weapon is designed for hitting ground vehicles, not small targets moving at 100's of m/s ... that job is left to SAMs and AAMs.

Ok, but is the temperature of the Mav modeled in the game? I think not.

 

BTW, can you fire the Mav at slow flying aircraft?

[S77th-GOYA]

Now on the other hand, that weapon is designed for hitting ground vehicles, not small targets moving at 100's of m/s ... that job is left to SAMs and AAMs.

 

And what was the Tung's missle designed to hit?

[S77thFever]

BTW, can you fire the Mav at slow flying aircraft?

 

Oh yeah, the Maverick is great for taking out helos in game.

[GGTharos]

Ok, but is the temperature of the Mav modeled in the game? I think not.

 

BTW, can you fire the Mav at slow flying aircraft?

 

I reality? If it's moving slowly, sure (or if it's fast, but coming completely ehad-on and not maneuvering ... ie. low LOS rate) ... I dont' see why not.

 

But once the target starts maneuvering at speeds exceeding say, 70kph and generating big LOS rates (pure guess here!) all bets are off.

[GGTharos]

And what was the Tung's missle designed to hit?

 

Helicopters and fixed-wing CAS aircraft in a high-clutter environment? ;)

[S77th-GOYA]

Helicopters and fixed-wing CAS aircraft in a high-clutter environment? ;)

 

Yep, big fat targets.

[GGTharos]

Yeah, kinda like the stinger ... which can and does intercept cruise missiles and is used in that role by us AD operators ... did I mention the stinger doesn't have a fuze?

[S77th-GOYA]

We're not talking about cruise missles.

[SwingKid]

To add more fuel...

 

It appears that contrary to Tunguska, the Tor system DOES have a widely advertised anti-missile capability. It seems to have been designed for this from the start - still apparently uses SACLOS, but with a narrower beamwidth than Tunguska, and the missile has a larger warhead, resembling Pantsyr.

 

Other modern SAMs like Buk and Tunguska have anti-ARM tactics described in the reference text, but these usually consist of switching frequencies or polarities, having multiple stations work together, blinking or shutting down the radar. But for the case of Tor, the text is very clear:

 

Protection against anti-radiation missiles is achieved by their detection and destruction by own SAMs.

 

Wow.

 

Thanks to D-Scythe for pointing it out. It takes me a while to read through all the Russian text; there are still many systems left to study...

 

-SK