More realistic Tor SAM missile selfdestruct-logic

What logic is that?

 

The missile has a effective range of 10 km or more and it is limited to fly up only 6 km?

Why?

 

 

 

That is calculated max range. Missile has only so much energy to fly only so far or so high that it is known by range and altitude of target can it reach it. But you do not destroy missile because it has flown 60% of maximum range without good reason.

 

 

 

 

Sorry, provide evidence that it is hardcoded to 6000m in real thing.

 

Missile flying upwards 2600 km/h at 6000m from launch and you kill it because "out of intercept envelope" without logical reason.

 

Flying 300 km/h and it would make sense.

 

In sports if weather conditions or athletes capabilities exceed the specific parameters, conditions can be changed. Like example in ski jumping the jumpers seat height is moved based wind conditions so that they wouldn't fly over critical-point or get unfair assistance compared to other athletes. Where their envelopes are limited by engineering.

 

Now having a missile have potential fly further easily, doesn't get engineered to stop on magical range without good reason like missile battery ending (time limited, not speed or altitude).

So much wrong with this. If you have proof that SAMs can actually reach the same altitude as it's max range please provide even one source. But be aware Not a single SAM in production by any country can achieve this. It's a limit of aerospace engineering and flight mechanics.

A TOR is a short range low to medium altitude SAM and the variant we have modeled has max ceiling altitude of 20K feet.

Do not confuse max altitude with max range. They are completely different! A 12km range does NOT equate to a max altitude of 12kms!!!!

Again if you have proof that they should not self destruct when the target is outside the maximum ranges then please provide them.

So much wrong with this. If you have proof that SAMs can actually reach the same altitude as it's max range please provide even one source. But be aware Not a single SAM in production by any country can achieve this. It's a limit of aerospace engineering and flight mechanics.

Sorry, but read again. I didn't talk about maximum range, but effective range.

Those are two different things you should know.

And if you look the flight dynamics chart, it is showing that missile clearly can reach past 6 km altitudes, it is just not stated what is its pK there.

A TOR is a short range low to medium altitude SAM and the variant we have modeled has max ceiling altitude of 20K feet.

Please provide evidence that in real thing the missile is killed when guidance radar detects that it has reached 6000 meters altitude from the launch altitude.

Do not confuse max altitude with max range. They are completely different! A 12km range does NOT equate to a max altitude of 12kms!!!!

I didn't.... If you would just read...

Again if you have proof that they should not self destruct when the target is outside the maximum ranges then please provide them.

No, you need to show evidence of the current implementation as it is illogical. You need to answer to question "Why?" by providing the documents.

You are now just claiming that missile that has huge energy potential is killed by purpose after flying 6000 meters upwards because "it is out of envelope". Like magically the missile energy is gone after that, or radar can't anymore detect a target at 6000m higher while it can detect them past 24 kilometers horizontally.

Please provide evidence that supports the current implementation that why is the guidance system sending self-destruction command to missile that has all the capabilities to intercept target after 6000 meters upward flight?

Like I said, take your source documentation to ED. This argument is going around in circles.

I don't have to provide or prove ANYTHING as I am not questioning the current SAM modelling... YOU have to provide evidence that it is wrong.

I don't have to provide or prove ANYTHING as I am not questioning the current SAM modelling... YOU have to provide evidence that it is wrong.

THIS. So much this. This is the thing that gets my goat every single time. Are people really so stupid that they just can't understand the burden of proof being ALWAYS WITHOUT EXCEPTIONS on the claimant?

Now someone should be able to explain those things better.

What is clear is that RED zone is for a target speed of 700 m/s (2520 km/h > Mach 2). Where target height is 4 km and range is 5 km.

What is clear is that PINK zone is for a target speed of 300 m/s (1080 km/h < Mach 1). Where target height is 6 km and max range 12 km.

The given values are for intercept probabilities instead maximum ranges.

For a 9M331 missile it is stated that the motor burn time is in launching mode 4 seconds, that accelerates missile to its maximum speed of 850 m/s. Then activates the cruising mode, that lasts 12 seconds of the flight maintaining 850 m/s speed, allowing missile to cover over 8 km with active flight, and effectively engage targets flying speeds =<700 m/s.

The OSA-AK 9M33M2 missile (from 1975) has specifications like:

Launch weight 126.3 kg

Length 3158 mm

Propellant 9H15, weight: 77.5 kg

Burn time: 13.2-19.2 seconds

Max speed: 640 m/s (Mach 2)

9E316M Radio Proximity fuse receiver

9E316M Radio Proximity fuse transmitter

9B390M autopilot (time to spin up gyroscope before launch: 15 seconds)

Air pressure bottle for electricity and steering system:

Pressure: 37 MPa

Contents: 2.5 liters of air

Maximum flight time: 24-27 seconds.

The 9M33M2 is stated to have maximum flight parameters of the target as:

500 m/s (Mach 1.6) in speed

10.300 meters in range

5000 meters in height

The 9M331-1 / 9M334 specifications

Length: 2900 mm

Launch weight: 167 kg

Target max range: 15 km (9M331 = 12 km)

Target max height: 10 000 meters (9M331 = 8 km)

THIS. So much this. This is the thing that gets my goat every single time. Are people really so stupid that they just can't understand the burden of proof being ALWAYS WITHOUT EXCEPTIONS on the claimant?

precisely. I give my statements on a mixture of published data and over 10 years of work in the air defense world in 5 countries. if you reject that, fine, but the original assertion by OP was given on the basis of "this doesnt feel right to me"

dont think that a tor missile would autodestruct at the edge of its envelope? even a missile as rudimentary as a stinger will, in FM 44-18-1 it states: "Should target intercept not occur within 15-19 seconds after launch, a self-destruct circuit initiates warhead detonation". if a target is 22 seconds of flight time away from the gunner, sorry charlie- that missiles blowing up even if it has the kinetic energy to continue the flight . in history of the redeye system (precursor to stinger) Citation here it mentions a self destruct timer.

The aim-9 has a timed self destruct sequence reference here why is that relavant? the Aim-9 was used on the chaparral air defense system, and the same self destruct mechanism is listed in TM-1425-1585-10-1

Vulcan rounds self destruct after 1800 meters

the self destruct at the edge of the engagement envelope, or when engagement is no longer possible or desired is important for two reasons: first, you dont want missiles or rounds raining down on populated areas of concentrations of friendly troops.

second reason: you dont want an intact missile falling into someone elses hands. The Atoll missile is a classic example of this, it being some mig pilots lucky day to be struck with a sidewinder that didnt explode on impact. it was then reverse engineered, seeing widespread usage even today.

another concern of captured, intact missiles ,as highlighted in this article is that means of defeating or distracting the missile from its target may be researched.

with all that being said, i find it entirely logical that the tor would self-destruct at the edge of its engagement envelope. If you think thats illogical, in the face of a preponderance of precedent, provide documentation that would indicate the tor should ignore its parameters and continue the engagement

I don't have to provide or prove ANYTHING as I am not questioning the current SAM modelling... YOU have to provide evidence that it is wrong.

You are defending the current SAM modeling.

You are making a claim that the TOR will self-destruct its missile exactly at 6000 m altitude from the launch altitude, regardless that the missile has energy and power to fly well above that altitude above launch point.

You are the smart one, you are the wise one. You need to explain to everyone who is questioning "Why?" that why it does so.

You are the one who is accepting the status quo, you are the one who must provide evidence that supports the status quo.

Because someone comes and asks "Why it does it" from you, it is not you who can say "Please provide evidence why it should do otherwise?".

As you can not explain WHY, then you do not know. And you do not have any evidence to explain WHY because you don't have even a argument with logic that why does the missile get self-destructed on the moment it flies 6000 meters above the launch platform, regardless is that point 1 or 12 kilometers from the launch point!

You are just saying "It is the intercept envelope" without explaining WHY.

Can you explain WHY does the missile self-destruct at 6001 meters above launch platform, regardless is that point 1 kilometer to west or 12 kilometers to west from the launch platform?

Why does the missile be self-destructed artificially at 6001 meters above the launch platform regardless the range?

What is so magical in that 6000 meters altitude that requires defending that missile would never fly above that altitude?

Simply put, you do not agree that the missile has kinematic and power capabilities to fly far far higher than 6000 meters, but its intercept capabilities are limited by the target speed, vector and altitude.

If helicopter hovers at 6200 meters above the TOR, the crew is not there "Damn we can't shoot it down!". They can as the missile will easily punch through at that altitude and impact that hovering helicopter even if at 8000-10000 meters, as long it has kinematic energy and power to keep guidance and navigation powered up.

Here is against what the TOR is used for:

In the 1970-1980s, several countries acquired airborne high-precision weapons (HPW - further abbreviated as PGM), boasting improved quality and produced in increased numbers. In terms of effectiveness, the PGM could compare to tactical nuclear weapons, while they could be carried by both strategic aircraft and most flying machines represented by the army and tactical aircraft.

 

At present, leading military specialists consider the PGM as the main weapon to deliver the first (preventive) strike, capable of disabling or paralyzing air defenses, increasing the capacity and enhancing the effectiveness of the conventional means of air attack. In the course of subsequent combat operations the PGM is used, as a rule, to destroy (neutralize) the vital pinpoint and small-size targets carrying important potentials.

 

According to modern classification, the tactical PGM include:

 

1. Antiradar missiles capable of destroying targets at a distance of 15 to 70 and, in perspective, up to 150 km from the launching point and flying at altitudes of 60 m to 12 - 16 km. The effective RCS of such missiles is minimized to about 0.1 m2, while the flight speed varies from 200 to 700 m/s.

2. Airborne guided missiles with infrared, laser or TV homing heads, with a launching range from 6 to 10 km, angles of attack from 8-10 to 45-60 deg, effective RCS from 0.06 to 0.5 m2 and flight speeds from 200 to 600 m/s.

3. Gliding and controlled guided aerial bombs and clusters with a release (drop) range of 8 to 10 km, effective Radiation PatternRCS below 0.5 m2, speed of 250 to 400 m/s and angles of attack up to 50 - 55 deg.

4. Missiles fitted with inertial guidance and terrain avoidance features using the terrain map and capable of flying at 60 m and lower altitudes.

 

The PGM also include antiship missiles.

 

https://www.ausairpower.net/APA-9K331-Tor.html

The TOR is defense point against tactical PGM. So all mavericks, HARM, laser guided bombs, GPS navigating bombs and missiles, anti-ship missiles, cruise missiles etc etc.

It is not designed to engage fighters, bombers, helicopters etc but it is completely capable for that as well, as long the target speed, vector and altitude allows its missile to intercept it.

So the target envelopes you read, that is very very likely when the target is heading at the target that TOR is protecting.

So you launch a cruise missile at it that flies 300 m/s (Mach 0.9) at the S-300 site that TOR is defending.

You can now simply find out that TOR own radar has gimbal limit and it has radar scan rate limit, detection limit and reaction time limit. So it is that at what range and altitude TOR can engage a target like cruise missile or HARM flying toward it.

Primary targets are all the weapons threatening area TOR is located, secondary targets are aircrafts trying to release those weapons in the area or operating in that area.

There are people who finds it odd that why does TOR self-destruct its missile at 6001 meters altitude of the TOR altitude itself without reason. And they ask "Why?".

And you are "This is all perfectly correct and right, if you can't provide evidence to anything other, go away!".

So do you know WHY it is that 6000 meters at 1 km range or 12 km range or anything between? What is that special 6000 meters?

Is it a some kind weapons deployment agreement or licensing thing that TOR would be classified as something else if its missiles flies above 6000 meters of the TOR itself?

You are the smart one, you are the wise one, you are the one who knows why.

So please explain technically exactly why TOR does so?

[ATTACH]241655[/ATTACH]

 

Now someone should be able to explain those things better.

 

What is clear is that RED zone is for a target speed of 700 m/s (2520 km/h > Mach 2). Where target height is 4 km and range is 5 km.

 

What is clear is that PINK zone is for a target speed of 300 m/s (1080 km/h < Mach 1). Where target height is 6 km and max range 12 km.

 

The given values are for intercept probabilities instead maximum ranges.

 

For a 9M331 missile it is stated that the motor burn time is in launching mode 4 seconds, that accelerates missile to its maximum speed of 850 m/s. Then activates the cruising mode, that lasts 12 seconds of the flight maintaining 850 m/s speed, allowing missile to cover over 8 km with active flight, and effectively engage targets flying speeds =<700 m/s.

 

The OSA-AK 9M33M2 missile (from 1975) has specifications like:

Launch weight 126.3 kg

Length 3158 mm

Propellant 9H15, weight: 77.5 kg

Burn time: 13.2-19.2 seconds

Max speed: 640 m/s (Mach 2)

9E316M Radio Proximity fuse receiver

9E316M Radio Proximity fuse transmitter

9B390M autopilot (time to spin up gyroscope before launch: 15 seconds)

Air pressure bottle for electricity and steering system:

Pressure: 37 MPa

Contents: 2.5 liters of air

Maximum flight time: 24-27 seconds.

 

The 9M33M2 is stated to have maximum flight parameters of the target as:

500 m/s (Mach 1.6) in speed

10.300 meters in range

5000 meters in height

 

The 9M331-1 / 9M334 specifications

Length: 2900 mm

Launch weight: 167 kg

Target max range: 15 km (9M331 = 12 km)

Target max height: 10 000 meters (9M331 = 8 km)

Where's your proof that a SAM will not self destruct once the maximum target parameters have been met?

precisely. I give my statements on a mixture of published data and over 10 years of work in the air defense world in 5 countries. if you reject that, fine, but the original assertion by OP was given on the basis of "this doesnt feel right to me"

So you are now defending just your ego and your status, yet you can't explain anything technically in the TOR system that why does the missile get self-destructed at 6000m.

You have the burden of proof that WHY IT DOES THAT!

When your child asks from you "How can birds fly?" or "Why does the train go faster than your car?" then are you seriously answering "My child, can you proof that bird flies wrong?" or "can you proof that train really goes faster than my car?"

This is not about your career, your something something. This is that you as now the super expert in this thread about TOR systems would specifically explain that what is the reason why missile is self-destructed exactly at the 6000 meters from the TOR height?

Or do we simply accept that ED simply made a programming that "H=Launcher >6000m = self destruct"? Just so they don't need to make any complex missile flight modeling, flight and targeting logic etc etc?

Where's your proof that a SAM will not self destruct once the maximum target parameters have been met?

That has been asked from you.

You are defending the current SAM modeling.

 

You are making a claim that the TOR will self-destruct its missile exactly at 6000 m altitude from the launch altitude, regardless that the missile has energy and power to fly well above that altitude above launch point.

 

You are the smart one, you are the wise one. You need to explain to everyone who is questioning "Why?" that why it does so.

 

You are the one who is accepting the status quo, you are the one who must provide evidence that supports the status quo.

 

Because someone comes and asks "Why it does it" from you, it is not you who can say "Please provide evidence why it should do otherwise?".

 

As you can not explain WHY, then you do not know. And you do not have any evidence to explain WHY because you don't have even a argument with logic that why does the missile get self-destructed on the moment it flies 6000 meters above the launch platform, regardless is that point 1 or 12 kilometers from the launch point!

You are just saying "It is the intercept envelope" without explaining WHY.

 

Can you explain WHY does the missile self-destruct at 6001 meters above launch platform, regardless is that point 1 kilometer to west or 12 kilometers to west from the launch platform?

 

Why does the missile be self-destructed artificially at 6001 meters above the launch platform regardless the range?

 

What is so magical in that 6000 meters altitude that requires defending that missile would never fly above that altitude?

 

Simply put, you do not agree that the missile has kinematic and power capabilities to fly far far higher than 6000 meters, but its intercept capabilities are limited by the target speed, vector and altitude.

 

If helicopter hovers at 6200 meters above the TOR, the crew is not there "Damn we can't shoot it down!". They can as the missile will easily punch through at that altitude and impact that hovering helicopter even if at 8000-10000 meters, as long it has kinematic energy and power to keep guidance and navigation powered up.

 

Here is against what the TOR is used for:

 

 

 

The TOR is defense point against tactical PGM. So all mavericks, HARM, laser guided bombs, GPS navigating bombs and missiles, anti-ship missiles, cruise missiles etc etc.

 

It is not designed to engage fighters, bombers, helicopters etc but it is completely capable for that as well, as long the target speed, vector and altitude allows its missile to intercept it.

 

So the target envelopes you read, that is very very likely when the target is heading at the target that TOR is protecting.

 

So you launch a cruise missile at it that flies 300 m/s (Mach 0.9) at the S-300 site that TOR is defending.

You can now simply find out that TOR own radar has gimbal limit and it has radar scan rate limit, detection limit and reaction time limit. So it is that at what range and altitude TOR can engage a target like cruise missile or HARM flying toward it.

Primary targets are all the weapons threatening area TOR is located, secondary targets are aircrafts trying to release those weapons in the area or operating in that area.

 

There are people who finds it odd that why does TOR self-destruct its missile at 6001 meters altitude of the TOR altitude itself without reason. And they ask "Why?".

 

And you are "This is all perfectly correct and right, if you can't provide evidence to anything other, go away!".

 

So do you know WHY it is that 6000 meters at 1 km range or 12 km range or anything between? What is that special 6000 meters?

Is it a some kind weapons deployment agreement or licensing thing that TOR would be classified as something else if its missiles flies above 6000 meters of the TOR itself?

 

You are the smart one, you are the wise one, you are the one who knows why.

 

So please explain technically exactly why TOR does so?

I have never worked with SAMs but did work with UAVs used by the military that had hardcoded limits. Once the limits are reached, either a timer or a fail safe starts. Again you are making it look like SAMs are sentient thinking beings. They are not.

Once a threshold is met, then the response is absolute. A SAM is not the little train that could (I think I can, I think I can), and ignore its limits because it "THINKS" it can reach the target. That's not at all how any systems work.

That has been asked from you.

Self destruct mechanisms for rocket propelled munitions has been around for over 50 years. All SAMs have this fail safe.

dont think that a tor missile would autodestruct at the edge of its envelope? even a missile as rudimentary as a stinger will, in FM 44-18-1 it states: "Should target intercept not occur within 15-19 seconds after launch, a self-destruct circuit initiates warhead detonation". if a target is 22 seconds of flight time away from the gunner, sorry charlie- that missiles blowing up even if it has the kinetic energy to continue the flight .

Yes, we know that logic as it has already explained. But are you now seriously saying that you think that missile operation time based battery power that it needs to generate itself, is same thing as maximum altitude from launch platform to be self-destructed?

As I already explained it in the begin, it would make sense that in the last second when the missile itself detects that its power source is depleted (measuring voltage, amps what ever) it will trigger self-destruction.

But please explain how does it work if it takes missile to fly 12 kilometers in distance and at 6 kilometer in height and then the power is cut off and missile self-destructs, and that missile flies 1 kilometer distance and 6 kilometers in height and still have plenty of power left but self-destructs?

Are you seriously claiming that the missile can fly faster to 6 km altitude when it is at 12 km distance, than if it would fly at 6 km altitude going straight up?

in history of the redeye system (precursor to stinger) Citation here it mentions a self destruct timer.

The aim-9 has a timed self destruct sequence reference here why is that relavant? the Aim-9 was used on the chaparral air defense system, and the same self destruct mechanism is listed in TM-1425-1585-10-1

Vulcan rounds self destruct after 1800 meters

Yes, timed... Timed... And timed. Nothing about the specific altitude....

You think it is logical that missile can spend a 18 seconds to fly to reach 6 km and it self-destructs. And same time the missile can spend 9 seconds to fly to reach same 6 km and it self-destructs?

If the

the self destruct at the edge of the engagement envelope, or when engagement is no longer possible or desired is important for two reasons: first, you dont want missiles or rounds raining down on populated areas of concentrations of friendly troops.

As already I have explained.... Common thing is that once missile detects it is falling, it self-destructs itself. Same thing is when it is measured that missile has missed the target, it gets self-destructed in hope that it still could damage the target it just missed.

Do we see these things with example R-27? No, the missile will gladly fall from the skies without any logic.

second reason: you dont want an intact missile falling into someone elses hands. The Atoll missile is a classic example of this, it being some mig pilots lucky day to be struck with a sidewinder that didnt explode on impact. it was then reverse engineered, seeing widespread usage even today.

Ahem... The AIM-9B had the self-destruct mechanism.... It just didn't work because the missile was damaged in impact.

another concern of captured, intact missiles ,as highlighted in this article is that means of defeating or distracting the missile from its target may be researched.

Yes, the whole history is full of stolen, captured and spied weapons. Nothing new here.

Yet even today a cluster munitions are all incapable to self-destruct even when they have the chemical or electronic fuse. That is why the mines are declared anti-civilian weapons because after the war you can't be sure are the mines left to blow up, even with all the fancy self-destruct functions. Only sure thing is that there is a person triggering the explosive and person that will unarm and restore the explosive when no need.

with all that being said, i find it entirely logical that the tor would self-destruct at the edge of its engagement envelope. If you think thats illogical, in the face of a preponderance of precedent, provide documentation that would indicate the tor should ignore its parameters and continue the engagement

Based to what?

What is the mechanic why it self-destruct itself at 6000 meters above TOR vehicle?

Place TOR on mountain at 10 000m altitude from sea and missile will fly 84 degree upwards and self-destruct at 16 000 meters altitude.

Place TOR on ocean shore at 0 meters altitude and missile will fly at 6000 meters altitude to self-destruct.

And it does so regardless about the time, or distance. It doesn't matter does it take 7 seconds or 18 seconds. Or does it fly 1 kilometers or 12 kilometers.

It doesn't matter is there a target with speed of 700 m/s or 300 m/s or is there target that just hovers.

It doesn't matter does the missile have energy to fly well above 6000 meters, or is it barely gliding to reach 6000 meters.

There is just this mystical 6000 meters that is like crew is waiting with hand on self-destruct button to blow it up on the moment missile is ranged to fly 6000 meters above TOR itself, just for sake of getting it to blow up and not reaching over 6000 meters.

First thing that is written big on every TOR crew compartment door is "DO NOT SHOOT HIGHER THAN 6000 M ABOVE YOU"?

And if someone dares to question that "Why?" or "How?", it is like requirement to proof that why it doesn't do that because in the game it does!

You are defending the current SAM modeling.

Deleted the superfluous wall of text.

Yes, he is. No burden of proof required. Whereas you're contesting it, and that sets the burden of proof right on you. Now, do you understand this or do you not?

Self destruct mechanisms for rocket propelled munitions has been around for over 50 years. All SAMs have this fail safe.

Please provide evidence that what kind a self-destruct mechanism is there to blow it up exactly 6000 meters above the TOR itself regardless the distance?

Why the current modeling is correct?

Deleted the superfluous wall of text.

Deleted illogical argument.

So you are now defending just your ego and your status, yet you can't explain anything technically in the TOR system that why does the missile get self-destructed at 6000m.

this is not about ego, im simply establishing that i have the experience to make an educated inference based off of other systems.

i dont have the burden of proof, the OP who stated that this modelling is illogical is the one who needs to prove why this is so, or the modelling is incorrect.

there may be some variation, as in autodestruction +/- a few hundred meters , but an engagement envelope is an engagement envelope

heres a visual example of that , using C-RAM. all those explosions arent rounds hitting the targets, theyre when they reach a predetermined range (predeterminged time by known velocity of the rounds) you'll note that *most* rounds self destruct in vaguely the same location for each burst

Deleted illogical argument.

Deleted what, your illogical argument(s)? Only serves to help you.

EDIT: OK, so you really don't get what burden of proof means. Judging from your old posts I'm not really surprised, TBH.

Please provide evidence that what kind a self-destruct mechanism is there to blow it up exactly 6000 meters above the TOR itself regardless the distance?

Why the current modeling is correct?

If the limit was 6100m you’d be crying that it should be able to continue to fly at a target at 6200m! You and Daniel will continue to move the goal posts everytime a jet flies over the limit.

You will continue to ignore the limits while making assumptions that SAMs should have some sort of intelligence instead of hard limits set out by the manufacturer.

You also need to read a primer on critical thinking and logic.

I think the main problem here is not

"why does the missile self destruct"

but rather

"why the maximum altitude is 6km?"

I think what Fri13 is trying to say is that the missile can have enough energy to reach a target above 6km* and the radar is able to track a target above 6km*.

If so, then why set an arbitrary limit and reduce your defensive capabilities if both the missile and the radar can surpass it?

I've gotta say, I know very little about SAMs but it does seem strange to me.

*provided that certain conditions are met

 

Ahem... The AIM-9B had the self-destruct mechanism.... It just didn't work because the missile was damaged in impact.

 

 

its possible. its possible that there was a defective component. I wouldnt rule out human error either. when we occupied a patch of real estate on the south end of Baghdad International Airport, I remember seeing a british bomb, unexploded on the ground near the southernmost hardened hangar. I wish i still had pics of what i found- im sure if the pilot know, he wouldve been pissed: the fuse on it was stamped "for training use only"...guy risked his life to drop a useless bomb

I think the main problem here is not

 

"why does the missile self destruct"

 

 

but rather

 

 

"why the maximum altitude is 6km?"

I think what Fri13 is trying to say is that the missile can have enough energy to reach a target above 6km* and the radar is able to track a target above 6km*.

 

 

 

If so, then why set an arbitrary limit and reduce your defensive capabilities if both the missile and the radar can surpass it?

 

 

I've gotta say, I know very little about SAMs but it does seem strange to me.

 

 

 

*provided that certain conditions are met

Because there HAS to be a hard coded limit. The max effective radar altitude for a TOR is around 7300m so the max launch parameter has to be much lower. It is not arbitrary!!

Please provide evidence that what kind a self-destruct mechanism is there to blow it up exactly 6000 meters above the TOR itself regardless the distance?

Why the current modeling is correct?

The point is that it's you who has to provide evidence. You didn't provide an opposing/additional view or opinion, you came in here stating 'this is how it is'.

And while I'd lean on your side of your argument, you kinda need to tone it down because this isn't the first time where we've seen a 'this makes sense' sort of argument that ended up not being correct IRL anyway because whatever.

The easiest example on this forum is R-27ET datalink. Everyone assumed it was there because hey, we just exchange the homing head. Turns out the homing head section did indeed contain all the fun stuff required for the DL, and the WCS never generated any DL commands for any IRH missile.

So yes, the missile could just self-destruct at 6000m because they decided to program it that way for whatever reason. Is it likely? I lean on no, it doesn't make sense to me. But you can't provide actual evidence either way, so where do you come off demanding it?

 

Yes, timed... Timed... And timed. Nothing about the specific altitude....

 

 

--snip--

 

 

Based to what?

 

What is the mechanic why it self-destruct itself at 6000 meters above TOR vehicle?

!

the TOR has an active self destruct mechanism dictated by internal logic rather that a timer like the others. that can be inferred from this article:

https://en.uos.ua/produktsiya/tehnika-pvo/69-boevaya-mashina-tor-9a330

where it states towards the bottom that if the missile loses radio guidance, the missile auto-destructs. there could also be other defined cases, or the 6km ceiling is a function of the radar itself. some radars are very good at looking up, but not necessarily out, others can look out, but not up so well. or they can do both, but in order to do one, they have to drop search sectors in the other. 6 km couldve been chosen as a point where communication with the base station begins to drop off

Let’s put this discussion to bed. I have ONE question for Fri13.

At what target elevation above will the real life TOR command a self destruct sequence?