More realistic Tor SAM missile selfdestruct-logic

The self-destruct currently seems very unlogical, in this example, as the target climbs through 6000 meters (long after missile fired), missile self-destructs although it can easily reach the target, still going 2600 km/h and within 2 km of the slow-moving target... https://ufile.io/iqs8l1z3

And how exactly would your wish fulfilled result in more realism than what we've got now? Where's your evidence?

What's the max ceiling for the SAM? What is the target altitude when the SAM self destructs?

The self-destruct currently seems very unlogical,

What's your source?

Why does a SAM self-destruct its missile that has energy to intercept the target, unless it is a target not to be shot down?

Edit

No idea. Suggest you either ask the manufacturer, or provide evidence of this being wrongly modelled if in doubt.

Why does a SAM self-destruct its missile that has energy to intercept the target, unless it is a target not to be shot down?

If a SAM is nearing its max ceiling or max range, why wouldn't it self destruct?

Why does a SAM self-destruct its missile that has energy to intercept the target, unless it is a target not to be shot down?

Patriot has a setting called URLAT , for urban low altitude trajectory of something like that. It prevents an intercept if that will take place below a certain altitude over populated areas. Prevents the missile from chasing a target where the intercept will cause more damage than letting the target go in on it's own. The missile will cease the engagement , travel to a different trajectory and self destruct.

If I remember correctly, a cease engagement command will destroy missiles in flight, but I can't remember what command it was (there was another that allowed missiles in the air to continue the engagement, but no further missiles could be launched against a target

It wouldn't surprise me if tor had similar capabilities to half an engagement

Its entirely possible that it's set to autodestruct if it loses its radio downlink for a certain amount of time.

What's the max ceiling for the SAM? What is the target altitude when the SAM self destructs?

 

 

 

 

What's your source?

According to wiki, max ceiling is 6000m , speed 850m/s (3060km/h) and a range of 12 km

The self-destruct currently seems very unlogical, in this example, as the target climbs through 6000 meters (long after missile fired), missile self-destructs although it can easily reach the target, still going 2600 km/h and within 2 km of the slow-moving target... https://ufile.io/iqs8l1z3

So,lemme get this straight: the target climbs outside of the missiles operational envelope and you think it's illogical that the missile destroys itself rather than continues on an invalid engagement?

According to wiki, max ceiling is 6000m , speed 850m/s (3060km/h) and a range of 12 km

I was actually asking DanielNL so he would understand and actually answer his own problem. He is having a very great deal of difficulty using SAMs in game and refuses any help we give him. Instead he states they are bugs or makes unfounded and completely fabricated claims that it is unrealistic for a SAM to self destruct when target is outside max range or ceiling.

Why does a SAM self-destruct its missile that has energy to intercept the target, unless it is a target not to be shot down?

Because it's programmed that way.

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.

Because it's programmed that way.

We know in DCS it is programmed that way. But there ain't evidence it would destruct at 6000m altitude with energy to intercept and destroy target it is launched at.

It is like saying that bullets would magically fall on ground after reaching effective firing range.

So,lemme get this straight: the target climbs outside of the missiles operational envelope and you think it's illogical that the missile destroys itself rather than continues on an invalid engagement?

What is this invalid engagement?

Lets say you have a target straight up from launcher. At 7500 m above in direct line, a stationary target.

The missile is flying straight upwards toward the target where at 6000m altitude it has speed of 2400 km/h (666 m/s) meaning it has 1500 meters distance to travel and it needs about 2 seconds time to intercept,

but instead of that, missile decided to blow up for nothing, instead continue intercept for two seconds to destroy it.

Many missiles has inertia system with self-destruct that once it starts falling from the sky, it will self-destruct so it wouldn't hit ground. Batteries set limitations so once battery is empty, it will self-destruct as last method.

But nowhere I have ever read that missile will self-destruct by a artificial height or range that regardless it has energy or battery to keep intercepting target, it will blow itself up just to be sure that it doesn't by any means fly further than this artificial distance.

 

Its entirely possible that it's set to autodestruct if it loses its radio downlink for a certain amount of time.

You mean uplink, as missile receives uplink from ground. There are systems to self-destruct after uplink is lost, but it means missile doesn't anymore know how to intercept, but in this case there is no losing a guidance.

These self destructs are failsafes. Reaching limits will engage the failsafes.

The missiles themselves are not self aware, logical thinking, sentient beings. They do not think for themselves nor do they play the percentages.

It's really not that hard to understand.

If you have evidence to suggest otherwise, please provide the documentation to ED directly.

You mean uplink, as missile receives uplink from ground. There are systems to self-destruct after uplink is lost, but it means missile doesn't anymore know how to intercept, but in this case there is no losing a guidance.

no, i meant downlink, the word choice was intentional but uplink is likely more correct.

let me explain: first it was conjecture that the missile would self destruct if radio contact was lost, on that much we agree, but i hadn't dug deeply enough into the 9m330/331/332 missiles to see whether they had TVM capability or not.

if they lost uplink, its more likely when the missile is low to the ground (if the missile would even launch). If the missile had TVM capability, that wouldn't kick in until the end of flight, potentially masking a downlink fault until the terminal end of flight.

it doesn't appear the TOR has TVM, but that doesn't mean there isn't some telemetry communicated down from the missile to the base station

It is like saying that bullets would magically fall on ground after reaching effective firing range.

Can't speak to the accuracy of this particular behavior, but I can assure you that bullets don't contain computers. Kinetic energy doesn't equal viability of the tracking system. As SAMs are frequently defensive munitions, it also stands to reason that you might not want an explosive warhead on a ballistic trajectory back to Earth, no?

What is this invalid engagement?

 

Lets say you have a target straight up from launcher. At 7500 m above in direct line, a stationary target.

 

The missile is flying straight upwards toward the target where at 6000m altitude it has speed of 2400 km/h (666 m/s) meaning it has 1500 meters distance to travel and it needs about 2 seconds time to intercept,

 

its an invalid engagement because the point of intercept falls outside of the engagement envelope. the missile cant simply say "well, im almost there, so ill keep going" . it has logic parameters that indicate certain actions must occur at certain points of flight.

In a similar vein, when i was in Patriot, if an engagement was projected to be outside of the engagement envelope prior to launch, you would get an alert on the screen saying "IPOUT", in that intercept point was out of coverage and the missile wouldnt launch...even if that point was just a little out of coverage

in other words, an engagement is valid or its not. the target is in the envelope or its not. its not "kinda" "sorta"

Because it's programmed that way.

 

or if simply ED set that 6m altitude as the limit of the DLZ which 'makes up' for any FM inaccuracy.

no, 6000 meters altitude is the top of the published engagement envelope

its an invalid engagement because the point of intercept falls outside of the engagement envelope. the missile cant simply say "well, im almost there, so ill keep going" . it has logic parameters that indicate certain actions must occur at certain points of flight.

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?

In a similar vein, when i was in Patriot, if an engagement was projected to be outside of the engagement envelope prior to launch, you would get an alert on the screen saying "IPOUT", in that intercept point was out of coverage and the missile wouldnt launch...even if that point was just a little out of coverage

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.

in other words, an engagement is valid or its not. the target is in the envelope or its not. its not "kinda" "sorta"

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).

no, 6000 meters altitude is the top of the published engagement envelope

 

And that can be still the last known altitude for given target speed to engage it. Like target at 250 m/s straight up you could still engage it at 6000m altitude as missile can reach it.

Let's clear something out. While the title says "realistic" the OT states that the missile behaviour is illogical not wrong.

So, instead of searching for documented evidence (which IMHO might be impossible for a system that's in active duty) let's find out if it really is illogical.

First of all, we all agree that it totally makes sense for the missile to blow up if it cannot reach its target.

I can think of only two reasons for that.

1. It doesn't have enough energy. In this case an arbitrary 6km limit would be stupid.

2. It doesn't receive guidance. In this case, if the radar can't effectively track the target above 6km it makes sense to blow up the missile.

So, the most important question is: do we have any evidence that the Tor can track targets above 6km or not?

I can think of only two reasons for that.

 

1. It doesn't have enough energy. In this case an arbitrary 6km limit would be stupid.

2. It doesn't receive guidance. In this case, if the radar can't effectively track the target above 6km it makes sense to blow up the missile.

 

 

So, the most important question is: do we have any evidence that the Tor can track targets above 6km or not?

Well, the radars doesn't exactly just stop to range as on wall. There is the inverse square law so if you have problems already in 3 km then it would be dead at 6 km as you get only 1/4 of the power.

Lets check this https://www.ausairpower.net/APA-9K331-Tor.html that was quoted here, it has one drawing for the missile flight envelope and it seems it is limited by the radar gimbal as at 4-4.2 km range the antenna in upper position can't aim above 6 km. But from that 4 km range it can raise antenna over 16 km at 12 km range. In the lower antenna position it is 6 km at the 12 km range.

The antenna system of the TAR is stabilized. It produces an eight-portion Battary command postradiation pattern (Fig. 2).

 

The scanning interval is 1 s, the beam flare (width) in the vertical plane is 4 deg; the portion switchover (scanning) mechanism is electronic. Any three portions of the radiation pattern can be scanned within one scanning interval. The entire elevation zone covers 32 deg and can be scanned within 3 s. The regular scanning program is selected in such a way that, in order to increase the detection range for low-altitude targets, the first portion is scanned twice within three scanning intervals.

 

To augment the TAR potential, the antenna system of the radar can be revolved mechanically through 32 deg with a detection zone of 32 to 64 deg. This means that two CVs of the Tor-M1 system can make up a detection zone of 0 to 64 deg, and the firing capabilities of each CV assure target engagement within 0 and 80 deg in elevation.

 

To increase the pulse energy, the length of the emitted pulse is increased, and the pulse is internally modulated. The radar can also operate in an active jamming environment when the entire transmitted power of the radar is accumulated in one critical portion instead of being distributed among three portions.

Does it start to sound the idea of "limitation of 6 km"?

So if you keep antenna at lower position, then you can't search a target above 6 km at distance of 12 km that is the missile max range. If you get the antenna upper position, then you can search only up to 6 km in that 4.2 km range. And the odd thing is again that "The firing capabilities of each Combat Vehicle assure target engagement withing 0 and 80 degree in elevation"? So it is just for the search limitation of 6 km at given distances and mechanically rotating antenna position.

And looking the small low definition GIF, it says above "Active flight paths" that gives flight path above up to 12 km.

And that missile has speed capabilities well past 18 km up to 20 km against specific kind targets, as after 12 km its speed starts to drop. On the right side it would be nice to make out what the upper and lower scale "????? target" says. Are those front and rear hemisphere shot ranges at given speed scale?

In this article: https://sputniknews.com/russia/2007122794327525/

There is stated this:

The TOR-M1, developed by the Russian company Almaz-Antei, is a low to medium-altitude, short-range surface-to-air missile system designed to intercept aircraft, cruise missiles, precision guided munitions, and unmanned aerial vehicles.

 

The missile system's target tracking range is 24 km (15 miles), and the engagement range is up to 12 km (1-7.5 miles), with an effective altitude of 10-6,000 m (33-20,000 ft).

And here it is: https://web.archive.org/web/20141106192118/http://www.oruzie.su/raketnye-sistemy/1926-tor

Work on the creation of the Top (9K330) air defense system began in early 1975 and continued until 1983 (lead developer at the NIEMI of the Ministry of Radio Industry). The complex was put into service in 1986. The complex provides for the defeat of a target flying at a speed of 300 m / s at altitudes of 0.01–6 km, in a range of 1.5–12 km with a parameter of up to 6 km.

At a target speed of 700 m / s, the maximum range of damage decreases to 5 km, the range of heights of the lesion narrows from 0.05 to 4 km, and the parameter does not exceed 4 km.

The effectiveness of the destruction of aircraft of one SAM is 0.30-0.77, helicopters - 0.50-0.88, UAVs - 0.85-0.95. The reaction time of the complex is 8-12 s, the transfer to the combat ready and stowed position - 3 minutes, loading the combat vehicle with the help of TZM - no more than 18 minutes. The main type of combat workSAM "Tor" is an autonomous operation of batteries, but centralized and mixed control of these batteries by the head of the air defense division and the commander of the anti-aircraft missile regiment is not ruled out.

In Russian:

So as I expected, there is no automatic missile destruction at 6 km altitude, but only limitation of the target speed.

If target flies 300 m/s (that is 1080 km/h, just below Mach 1) then it is 6 km altitude interception altitude at given specifications. And if it flies 700 m/s (that is 2520 km/h over Mach 2) then it drops to 4 km.

The missile, guidance and all can engage targets at much higher altitudes, all the way up to that 10-12 km. But the missile speed is limitation and needs to be counted for the target parameters (speed, vector).

There is no "kill switch" that self-destruct the missile at 6 km altitude, that is just a given altitude when the original missile is given a probability of target destruction (missile is exploded by a remote control).

Considering that it is 0.30 - 0.77 probability, so likely it is 0.30 with speed of 700 m/s and 0.77 at speed of 300 m/s. And it is in those ranges. The probability gets smaller higher you fly with those speeds.

So nothing should blow up the TOR missile at 6000 m hard coded altitude as now, but keep intercepting the target until the other parameters are met.

no, 6000 meters altitude is the top of the published engagement envelope

which I'd interpret as "SAM operator can launch at targets flying up to 6000m", and NOT as "missile self destructs as soon as it reaches 600000 cm altitude no matter missile trajectory" for example...

no, i meant downlink, the word choice was intentional but uplink is likely more correct.

 

let me explain: first it was conjecture that the missile would self destruct if radio contact was lost, on that much we agree, but i hadn't dug deeply enough into the 9m330/331/332 missiles to see whether they had TVM capability or not.

It does not - the guidance method is radio command and the missile has no seekerhead, so nothing to facilitate TVM.