More realistic Tor SAM missile selfdestruct-logic

So you've gone from not knowing anything, screaming why why why, to having the actual manual in hand? I call BS.

Call what you want, I don't care :book:

I have known far more than you all the time, you just can't provide evidence for your opinions because they are nothing more than believes.

I'll wait for ED to comment, until then, I'm sure nothing will be changed and if you are operating a SAM do not engage a bandit at/near max ceiling.

Yes, you and your lack of evidence for the 6000 meters above the TOR itself with missiles having enough energy but just happen to magically be cut off, so based your claim because missile would otherwise fly too fast outside of the radar tracking capabilities that just happen to be just above 7000 meters the TOR itself.

First it gives your position away with almost a 0% chance of a hit.

Yeah... You have not read a bit... You have no evidence for your 6000 m "max ceiling" for self-destruction and "7000 meters vertically for radar max reach".

I don't care, because you will never learn anything as you were not even capable to provide evidence for your claims, and you were not willing to even question "Would it be possible that it is wrong?" from yourself.

Now you have made an claim that you have 100% information that ED will never fix a clearly broken system, again please provide a evidence that ED is never going to improve the SAM systems engagement logic and functionalities.

Wait, just don't. Because I don't care, you and your personal insults, lack of civilized communication, incapability to provide evidence for your claims and all rest is nothing more than evidence that you would never be able do anything else.

Great you found a manual probably online. A manual that is probably still classified in its home country and not able to be used for this sim by ED to base their modeling.

I don’t think anyone has said the behavior is right, but it’s how this game/sim works, and unless there is public data or access to restricted data our limited abstract SAM modeling isn’t going anywhere.

Call what you want, I don't care :book:

I have known far more than you all the time, you just can't provide evidence for your opinions because they are nothing more than believes.

 

 

 

Yes, you and your lack of evidence for the 6000 meters above the TOR itself with missiles having enough energy but just happen to magically be cut off, so based your claim because missile would otherwise fly too fast outside of the radar tracking capabilities that just happen to be just above 7000 meters the TOR itself.

 

 

 

 

Yeah... You have not read a bit... You have no evidence for your 6000 m "max ceiling" for self-destruction and "7000 meters vertically for radar max reach".

 

I don't care, because you will never learn anything as you were not even capable to provide evidence for your claims, and you were not willing to even question "Would it be possible that it is wrong?" from yourself.

 

Now you have made an claim that you have 100% information that ED will never fix a clearly broken system, again please provide a evidence that ED is never going to improve the SAM systems engagement logic and functionalities.

 

Wait, just don't. Because I don't care, you and your personal insults, lack of civilized communication, incapability to provide evidence for your claims and all rest is nothing more than evidence that you would never be able do anything else.

I'll bite and play the game.

So according to your "manual" what is the MAX effective range and MAX effective ceiling of the TOR?

Any claims we made were from Russian public sources. Even you copied some info from those same webpages.

:megalol:

yes, some operate on two separate frequencies. In CNC machines (and quite possibly other pieces of equipment) you have whats known as a "heartbeat", a signal between processors essentially saying "im still here, and here's my status" that gets repeated at a fixed number of cycles.

as for which missiles uplink only, or both- i dont know. Any missile capable of TVM (which dates back at least to the mid-70s) absolutely has to have 2-way communication. the 9m330 doesnt have TVM, but it wouldn't surprise me if there was some telemetry sent back to the base station.

now, i have zero background in missile telemetry, but it stands to reason the missile periodically sends a status word as a heartbeat. if the ground station misses a few of them, it could send a query signal (essentially, "hey, you still there?}. a missile receiving those queries after having sent a series of status words could logically determine that downlink contact had been lost

Like I mentioned earlier, the Tor uses a radio command guidance system(similar to that of the Tunguska) for the 9M330 missile. The system tracks both the target and the inflight missile(via a beacon on the missile), based on which the targeting computer calculates course corrections required by the missile in order to intercept the target - these(course corrections) are then transmitted as simple steering commands to the missile. The missile itself has no "brain" and is essentially controlled in the same way you would control an RC toy. It is equipped with a radar fuze for the warhead, for which(IIRC) the range can be set remotely, so I guess that it can also be triggered to detonate(self destruct) if the launching system(or its operators) deems that the missile no longer has the ability to intercept the target.

Do you have a citation for that? I'm not trying to refute your statements so much as I try to keep abreast of air defense systems as well as I can

No sorry, I don't have any links handy, but you should be able to find this information if you look around.

But going by memory, a few other features I can remember is that the system is highly automated with a very short reaction time. It has two radars - one for initial target detection/prioritisation and another(phased array) for target/missile tracking and missile guidance. There is also an optronic(TV) back-up sight, with which the operator can autotrack the target and thereby feed the system with the angular coordinates of the target in case the targeting radar is affected by ECM.

The 9M330 missile is "cold launched" - i.e. is ejected by a catapult device in the launch container and oriented into the direction of the target by a thruster in the nose of the missile before the rocket motor is ignited. The motor is a two-staged boost/sustain type. It can intercept targets travelling at up to 700 m/s and with a G-load up to 10.

There is of course alot more to the system, but the above and the radio command guidance system I described earlier should at least account for the basics of how it works :)

Do you have a citation for that? I'm not trying to refute your statements so much as I try to keep abreast of air defense systems as well as I can

You can find most of that already in the linked public sources like: https://www.ausairpower.net/APA-9K331-Tor.html

But going by memory, a few other features I can remember is that the system is highly automated with a very short reaction time.

The system is possible be remote controlled or automated. The M1 will automatically classify targets for four categories and then prioritize their threat by speed and trajectory for the defended area. It can be even set to mode where firing officer task is just to make a decision in few seconds to launch or not.

It has two radars - one for initial target detection/prioritisation and another(phased array) for target/missile tracking and missile guidance.

Target Acquisition Radar (TAR) for independent searching.

Target Track Radar (TTR) for radar target tracking.

It has as well own a missile beacon tracker(s) next to the TTR, the cylinder shaped "turret".

There is also an optronic(TV) back-up sight, with which the operator can autotrack the target and thereby feed the system with the angular coordinates of the target in case the targeting radar is affected by ECM.

And the system is completely able guide missiles without radars passively, without RWR warnings on target by using TV/FLIR, or combination with the radar. The radar increases probability of intercept for small and fast targets, like smart munitions, but against fighters and helicopters TV/FLIR works fine. This is what example OSA crews did in the first Lebanon war, leaving pilots only means to detect the launch by spotting the launch smoke trail. One of the benefits for simpler radio guidance.

The 9M330 missile is "cold launched" - i.e. is ejected by a catapult device in the launch container and oriented into the direction of the target by a thruster in the nose of the missile before the rocket motor is ignited. The motor is a two-staged boost/sustain type. It can intercept targets travelling at up to 700 m/s and with a G-load up to 10.

The given engagement envelopes are for the mentioned targets vectors, speeds and altitudes, changing those will increase or decrease them as well propabilities of intercept.

I'll bite and play the game.

Sorry, you have been playing your own the game....

So according to your "manual" what is the MAX effective range and MAX effective ceiling of the TOR?

Looks like you have problems to understand what "max range" and "effective range" means...

If you would have been reading this thread from the start, you would already have your answers for that question.

Any claims we made were from Russian public sources. Even you copied some info from those same webpages.

Really?

Please show again where is your evidence that 9M330/9M331 self-destruct at 6000 meters above TOR launch altitude? As that is what DCS is made to do with all SAM's.

I have been asking all this time that you would provide this evidence for that self-destruction mechanism that you so much claim to have, and now that it is in "public sources".

As the public sources like https://www.ausairpower.net/APA-9K331-Tor.html does not even include word "self-destruct" in it or relation....

You have made claims that TAR and TTR can not see "just above 7000 meters" as there is some kind shield that denies the radar emissions getting higher than that above TOR why it is so dangerous that the missile would fly past that border at high speed and become danger.

Where is your evidence for that? I have asked multiple time, you just zip up with personal insults.

Only thing that has come clear is that you can not provide any evidence for your claim that 9M330/9M331 missile is self-destructed on the moment target flies above 6000 meters TOR itself no matter the missile properties or target speed or vector, and your "just above 7000 meters" above TOR for this radar shielding.

I know what GGTharos mentioned as well:

We don't know if the missile's FM is just not that good (missile too capable) or if the DLZ is incorrect or there is some other consideration - or if simply ED set that 6m altitude as the limit of the DLZ which 'makes up' for any FM inaccuracy.

As there are many odd things going on that all SAM systems logic (that should be very obvious for most people here anyways) that are super simple and renders them super easy targets and low threats to aircrafts.

It is just one of those to-do lists that ED needs to do at some point, make a proper CFD for all of them, and rewrite each ground units to have logic, behavior and commands.

The fact that ED ignores this thread only increases the likelihood for the theory that sb. prohibits them to have the more realistic logic implemented that we had up until 2019... Why oh why does this make me think of this recent ED-statement:

Hmmmmmm......

ЕД до сих пор до конца не знают что этот закон из себя представляет, плюс вышел он только-только, а теме уже пол года

1 hour ago, TotenDead said:

ЕД до сих пор до конца не знают что этот закон из себя представляет, плюс вышел он только-только, а теме уже пол года

wow, okay! [google translate: "ED still do not fully know what this law is, plus it came out just now, and the topic is already half a year"]

I've only just seen this thread and I don't know if anybody's already mentioned it, but from observation I know that radar-guided SAMs (of all nations) will self-destruct for several reasons-

A- If they lose their lock on their target at any time after firing.

B- if the target they were locked onto is destroyed by something before they reach it.

C- If they reach their extreme range without hitting anything.

So I don't think it's a bug.

For example here an SM-2 SAM fired from a Tico self-destructs soon after launch because of A or B, I don't know which, but if it tried to hold its lock on that incoming Chinese YJ-83 sea-skimming anti-ship missile, no wonder it self-destructed because incoming missiles are usually harder to keep locked-

Radar guided SAM's losing their lock is real-world-realistic of course and that's good.

I've also observed that the better and more modern a ships radar is, the less likely that their SAM's will lose their lock.

And also they're more likely to lose their locks if the target aircraft (and target missiles) are small.

Apart from self-destructing if they lose their lock, radar-SAMs might hit the ground or sea like these Perry-fired SM-2's are doing when they tried to engage incoming Russian 'Krypton' supersonic antiship sea-skimmers (the 4 dots) as the poor old Perry's ancient fire-control radar wasn't up to it-

PS- As regards heatseeking SAM's that don't need a radar-lock, I think the only time i've seen them self-destruct is if they reach their max range without hitting anything.

7 hours ago, PoorOldSpike said:

A- If they lose their lock on their target at any time after firing.

negative, SAMs can reacquire targets, and missile can be redirected at target if missile, I'm quite sure I have witnessed this myself with a specific radar-SAM in DCS. (A2A-missiles definitely can reacquire.)

7 hours ago, PoorOldSpike said:

B- if the target they were locked onto is destroyed by something before they reach it.

also here, it could be that if there is a group of targets and some target remains, missile could be redirected at new target (irl afaik).

7 hours ago, PoorOldSpike said:

C- If they reach their extreme range without hitting anything.

possibly correct.

Daniel not all SAMs can re-aquire a lost target.  That is simply not true. 

But again these points are moot because of our discussion the other day, of how all SAMs in DCS work.

Since the days of LOMAC,  ALL SAMS, have 3 parameters (Can currently be found in lua files) that cause an instant self destruct

Life_Time = (in seconds)
Range_max =  (in meters from launcher)
H_max =  (in meters above launcher)

If at any moment these limits are exceeded, it selfs destructs.  All SAMs have always done this in DCS.  This is not a TOR issue, nor an issue that just started happening.   

1 hour ago, Dagger71 said:

not all SAMs can re-aquire a lost target.  That is simply not true.

never claimed that all SAMs can. but many, or most, can, I'd guess. And, for the 2nd time now, please only use my forum name when you adress me in the forum, otherwise next time I'll see myself forced to notify ED staff that you don't "respect" me in this forum. (rule 1.2, Forum members must treat each other with respect and tolerance.)

Quote

Since the days of LOMAC,  ALL SAMS, have 3 parameters (Can be found in lua files) that cause an instant self destruct

Life_Time = (in seconds)
Range_max =  (in meters from launcher)
H_max =  (in meters above launcher)

 

If at any moment these limits are exceeded, it selfs destructs.  All SAMs have always done this in DCS.  This is not a TOR issue, nor an issue that just started happening.   

Aaaah okay, a general DCS issue then, alright, but I'm 99,5% sure that H_max for DCS Tor was reduced then, ~1-2 years ago. And that made Tor a way lower threat.

Instead, ED should just implement a check whether A) missile is still faster than target and B) if still on collision course, and if both are true, not self-destruct missile, even if H-max is passed.

Just now, D4n said:

never claimed that all SAMs can. but many, or most, can, I'd guess. And, for the 2nd time now, please only use my forum name when you adress me in the forum, otherwise next time I'll see myself forced to notify ED staff that you don't "respect" me in this forum. (rule 1.2, Forum members must treat each other with respect and tolerance.)

 

 

Aaaah okay, a general DCS issue then, alright, but I'm 99,5% sure that H_max for DCS Tor was reduced then, ~1-2 years ago. And that made Tor a way lower threat.

Instead, ED should just implement a check whether A) missile is still faster than target and B) if still on collision course, and if both are true, not self-destruct missile, even if H-max is passed.

Yeah it was ALWAYS 6000meters, I even remember you shooting down people in MP in you TOR   after having driven, what must have been hours to get to the top of the mountain. Only once someone flew 6000 above you, could you not kill them. 

 But there is an easy to test, download an older version and check the file.  The onus is on you to prove your point.

 As for your request, it's not necessarily unreasonable, BUT that would require DCS get very specific operational information  on each SAM,   which is very very unlikely. I am sure one day we will get some better AI, but for now, what we have is a compromise.

26 minutes ago, Dagger71 said:

Yeah it was ALWAYS 6000meters

okay okay o_o

26 minutes ago, Dagger71 said:

BUT that would require DCS get very specific operational information  on each SAM

no it wouldn't, just add the most basic "A) is missile still faster than target" and "B) is missile still on collision course" algorithm to all DCS radar-SAMs and bam, done. Most likely SA-2 also has such algorithm, after all, SA-2 has ESP-90 power generator trailer (consisting of 3 x 5E93), so already by the amount of electricity it requires, it will have enough computational power for such easy algorithm.

21 minutes ago, D4n said:

no it wouldn't, just add the most basic "A) is missile still faster than target" and "B) is missile still on collision course" algorithm to all DCS radar-SAMs and bam, done.

I mean, that would probably be better as now self-destruct logic is more adaptive, and the AI doesn't just self destruct missiles that may have had a chance of completing their intercept successfully. 

21 minutes ago, D4n said:

Most likely SA-2 also has such algorithm, after all, SA-2 has ESP-90 power generator trailer (consisting of 3 x 5E93), so already by the amount of electricity it requires, it will have enough computational power for such easy algorithm.

I find myself confuzzled. 

50 minutes ago, D4n said:

okay okay o_o

 

 

no it wouldn't, just add the most basic "A) is missile still faster than target" and "B) is missile still on collision course" algorithm to all DCS radar-SAMs and bam, done. Most likely SA-2 also has such algorithm, after all, SA-2 has ESP-90 power generator trailer (consisting of 3 x 5E93), so already by the amount of electricity it requires, it will have enough computational power for such easy algorithm.

Power requirements have NOTHING to do with computational power.  You do realize the first SA2 were produced a decade  after the end of WW2 and where were basically dumb missiles  controlled via RF signals.  they had no course correction nor any "computational power"  

", it will have enough computational power for such easy algorithm."  Daniel I have to ask, where do you get your information that "rocket science" is  so simple?  To give you an idea of  how complex , I've worked on "autonomous systems" and the programming in just providing level flight in windy conditions was enough for the original designer to have his work published through a major university. 

There is nothing easy in automating systems. BUT  having said that, yes I do believe that there can be work done to improve AI of ground units. 

But I believe no matter how SAMs get changed, you will move the goal posts every time     EI: lets say new SAM model will allow missile to fly 300-400 m  passed the limit before detonation, you will end up here again complaining. 

sorry, should've written "most likely", not "will".

9 hours ago, D4n said:

negative, SAMs can reacquire targets, and missile can be redirected at target if missile, I'm quite sure I have witnessed this myself with a specific radar-SAM in DCS. (A2A-missiles definitely can reacquire.)

 

also here, it could be that if there is a group of targets and some target remains, missile could be redirected at new target (irl afaik).

Depends if you're talking about the real world or DCS, as the two can behave very differently.

All wargames have their own odd little happenings so we can only grit our teeth and share Alice in Wonderland's observation- "Oh I do wish something would make sense for a change"..:)

PS- Some games (eg Harpoon) model radar-jamming to break missile locks or prevent them getting a lock in the first place but I don't know if DCS models it too.

DCS aircraft pop chaff which can decoy radar-missiles but apparently DCS ships don't pop it which is a glaring omission, as other game's ships (eg Fleet Command) do pop it.

10 hours ago, PoorOldSpike said:

PS- Some games (eg Harpoon)

what, a 1989 game? Would that explain your nickname "PoorOldSpike"?

yes, DCS urgently needs ship-chaff. Will make wishlist-thread.

2 hours ago, D4n said:

what, a 1989 game? Would that explain your nickname "PoorOldSpike"?

yes, DCS urgently needs ship-chaff. Will make wishlist-thread.

 

Well I'm 72 years old but chose my screenie 20 years ago when I happened to see an item on the net about a chinchilla named Spike that got it's toe caught in the corner of its cage and needed a vet's attention, so I took its name as a gesture of sympathy and have been trundling around the game forums ever since..