Why does the Tunguska used Optical Guidance instead of Radio Command Guidance?

Why does the Tunguska used Optical Guidance for its SA-19 Missiles in DCS instead of Radio Command Guidance as in real Life? The optical guidance system is a backup that is supposed to be used if jamming is excessive or in case of mechanical issues with the guidance radar. But in DCS its optical all the time and way to accurate with its optical guidance, which again is not correct as the reported engagement ranges and guidance is much more limited in optical mode in Real Life...

Why does the Tunguska used Optical Guidance for its SA-19 Missiles in DCS instead of Radio Command Guidance as in real Life? The optical guidance system is a backup that is supposed to be used if jamming is excessive or in case of mechanical issues with the guidance radar. But in DCS its optical all the time and way to accurate with its optical guidance, which again is not correct as the reported engagement ranges and guidance is much more limited in optical mode in Real Life...

The optical guidance still uses radio command guidance, just not the radar.

With the optical you do not reveal yourself to the target, the limitation is that the missile is flying in direct intercept, instead lead intercept.

Almost all (or all) soviet SAM's were capable for "silent engagements" and we are talking about tens of kilometers if not even more in some cases.

They have their "TGP" version and better ones even than the aircrafts carry. They do not just have better energy for more powerful radars, they have as well more computing power and more personnel in the whole air-defence.

The Tunguska uses search radar for stand-alone mode for searching targets or when assisting the GCI. We need to remember that almost all the Soviet SAM's are connected to GCI and what the GCI sees, it is updated to all with the datalinks. That includes Su-27S will see what the Tunguska see, what the Su-27S sees is what the Tunguska sees. This information is updated in 10 second periods, so it is not missile guidance grade, but you know where you need to point your attention to find the target.

The Tunguska uses radar only for the guns engagements, shooting down cruise missiles, ATGM etc. And as well the aircrafts at close range.

The big benefit of the optical tracking is that you would need to jam the missile guidance radio channel, not the radar. So your ECM becomes obsolete if not programmed to that. Your chaff does nothing, your flare does nothing... All that you have is your maneuverability and surprise element.

And Tunguska was meant to be highly mobile, a tank platoon protector. Not a "I sit here as a duck all day along defending an airfield". It is front-line SAM system and the air targets it was designed was small fighters like F-16 and attack aircrafts like A-10.

And when you fly those things, you need to dedicate to the target on the move, you need to fly and get yourself aligned on the target for attack run and fly low. And that means you are flying straight a head of the Tunguska. That with the optical guidance is ready to engage targets in couple seconds, instead few seconds that radar guided systems requires.

And the SAM systems primary mission is not to destroy aircrafts, but it is to disallow their operation in the area. Scare the off, get them reject their attack run and fly away to come again.

All AA systems point is to be scary, keep enemy aircrafts away. It doesn't matter if they are operational condition, flying somewhere etc, as long they do not fly in the area that is the ground forces combat zone (that is where the real advancements and victories are made, not in the cockpit) or be able to engage ground targets effectively (to stop attacks, destroy defences etc).

So if air-defence can deny the engagements or disturb the attacks, their mission is success, even without any single hit to enemy aircrafts.

And when you have a battery of Tunguska, it is six units and scattered about 1-2 km (can be further as well) from others, creating a larger network where at least two can engage the same target from different directions.

And that creates a effective network that denies slower aircrafts to penetrate the network, something that F-111 or Mig-27 were designed to perform, fly straight through the SAM network at high speed.

Interesting as always, Fri.

Standard decent-source spam for further reading: http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-96K6-Pantsir-2K22-Tunguska.html :P

APA is never a decent source, but sometimes it's the only source.

The SAMs won't engage at tens of kms with optical, nor can they do a great job at those distances.

Optical guidance is really jammed, just not in DCS. Yes, flares can and work... Just not in DCS.

Optical guidance is a backup and that makes it always worse than the primary methods for a number of reasons. All of that but modeled in DCS.

I think optical guidance is good enough for the target range between 10km. That was the primary goal for the time. Remember was primarily designed for low altitude targets like helicopters and cruise missiles and to get a good optical targeting from helicopters beyond 8km against moving target you probably need to be height enough to do it. Tunguska is not needed for such situation...

... but IRL a longer distance can be perfectly be guided with a mix of optical and radar and that situation leave you only few seconds to jam nothing. The radar guided missile for Tunguska is not implemented in DCS.

Just support on Fri's excellent post, the real world placement of military antennae and SAM at the naval base and locations across the Kuban and Caucasus outline everything he said with perfect clarity, as areas devoid of EWR or dedicated GCI are clearly gaps in the network that are obviously filled by the great big S400 emplacement near the naval base, and for continuance of the network to function correctly, obviously the SAM antennae must spend the bulk of their time slaved to the EWR/GCI network filling that gap or else strike aircraft could penetrate directly from the Black Sea right into the heart of the VVS test and training facilities on the Kuban, one of Russia's highest security regions AFAIK. I mean they don't like you looking too closely at a cow farm but here is where they do most of their air forces development training, there's not going to be a great big coverage gap, the SAM radar must be filling the gap slaved to the system or it just doesn't make any sense otherwise.

What I'm curious about would be a slaved electro-optical system in high security zones like they have on the ships. Bet that's part of the current GCI in sensitive areas.

It is front-line SAM system and the air targets it was designed was small fighters like F-16 and attack aircrafts like A-10.

I thought it was mainly designed to counter pop up attacks from US helicopters on advancing columns...