More realistic Tor SAM missile selfdestruct-logic

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

I have been asking that from you from the begin. As you claim it is a 6000 meters, and I have asked from you "why 6000?" because there are various altitudes depending the target.

So please explain that why the 6000? Please provide evidence that specifically shows that 9M330 missile can not by any means fly above 6000 meters regardless its energy and power state and target capabilities?

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'.

No. I have not said "this is how it is".

I have been asking "WHY 6000 METERS REGARDLESS ITS ENERGY STATE?"

Then I have been giving various sources for material that people should discuss and solve that what is that 6000 meter altitude thing.

Everyone who is defending the ED implementation of the 6000 meter automatic missile self-destruction is doing so blindly with full faith that ED has somewhere some material that would explain it, yet no one else has given any other flight characteristics or target envelopes than me with evidence that is pointing completely otherway.

I am still questioning "Why does TOR self-destruct its missile at 6000 meters regardless the missile flight time or energy state?

Many here is just with full faith going "Proof that ED is wrong!" without no one knowing WHY that 6000 meters exist.

I am not defending anything, I am not claiming anything. I am just asking.

Everyone who is defending the status quo has burden to provide evidence.

Secondly, I don't need to proof anything, because I am not talking about mathematics. I am not defending a theory, and I am not presenting a theory. I have no burden of proof any kind.

You are the self-claimed master of the flight dynamics, so please explain what are those graphics explaining that Dr Carlo Kopp has listed. And don't try to go personal attacks against him, but show on those graphs of his that what they are telling about?

Like explain the dotted curved line and what does the "active flight paths" mean in your expert opinion?

the TOR has an active self destruct mechanism dictated by internal logic rather that a timer like the others.

So as I explained it to you as one hypothetical reason.

where it states towards the bottom that if the missile loses radio guidance, the missile auto-destructs.

And that is very unlikely the reason because the guidance radar has gimbal limit of 0-84 degrees. It can truly guide the missile basically anywhere than straight above between 84-90 degrees. So it can't engage a target that is falling straight upwards, but that is why those are in pairs so they are covering each others.

there could also be other defined cases, or the 6km ceiling is a function of the radar itself.

Function of itself that just happen to change by the target parameters that even a slower target will be engaged at higher altitude?

How about a such a thing that the given 6000 meters is just for a given target speed, altitude and vector to come directly toward at it as I gave you as hypothesis?

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

Really....?

That magically the guidance radar simply goes blind when it needs to maintain lock at target at or above 6000 meters over radar itself? Regardless that target can be at 30 kilometer or 1 kilometer distance?

The radar is capable to keep guiding missile well past 10 km but only because it is a horizontal range and not vertical as the 6000 meters higher altitude of the radar itself is incapable to track target?

Please explain what is that "ceiling" at 6000 meters above the TOR that blocks the guidance radar regardless the target range?

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.

For that point, can you open up that mystical thing in that thread?

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4398473&postcount=5

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?

Have I made claim that TOR launched missile will self-destruct itself at 6000 meters that is only above its own altitude, regardless the missile flight time, missile speed or range of the missile flying?

No.

Have I questioned that what is the reason for this 6000 meters altitude?

Yes.

Do I need to provide evidence that it is something else?

No.

Do I need to provide evidence that it is so?

No.

Do anyone who is defending the status quo need to provide evidence that it is so?

Yes.

Why?

Because it is a claim that status quo is correct.

I can shoot as much questions I like without ever required to provide any evidence of any kind. Because I am not making a claim that something very specific is so.

I can show a graphic that tells is showing else, and I can ask "So why is not that correct?" without making any claims that it is correct.

You can see that I have remade those graphics, marking clearly that what I can't make out with ?????, so that someone could fill in what they think about them. Or if someone finds something that would explain technically the 6000m altitude or something that explains those odd graphics etc.

So I again just ask, if a missile is made to self-destruct at 6000 meters, why exactly 6000 meters?

Crew in TOR is capable to launch a missile without target lock. It is not required to use radar for that.

They can use the optical guidance method to launch the missile at any direction, at any angle. The missile would just start flying toward they are aiming at. The missile doesn't know is there something or not.

So lets make hypothetical scenario. We launch a missile in 15-45-70 degree angle upwards.

• With a 15 degree angle the missile would need to fly 23180 m LOS to reach 6000 m altitude, or 22390 m distance on ground.
  
• With a 45 degree angle the missile would need to fly 8480 m LOS to reach 6000 m altitude, or 6000 m distance on ground.
  
• With a 70 degree angle the missile would need to fly 6380 m LOS to reach 6000 m altitude, or 2180 m distance on ground.
  

Do you agree with that?

How long does it take for a missile that is flying 850 m/s for first 12 seconds (evidence in earlier messages) when the missile has its second sustained booster burning, to reach that 6000 meter altitude?

With 15 degrees it is 27 seconds, that we can expect it is too long missile guidance time so it must self-destruct itself before that as battery time ends?

With 45 degree it is 10 seconds, does that sound acceptable as it would just burn-out in two seconds?

With 70 degree it is 7.5 seconds, does that sound as well acceptable?

Now that doesn't include gravity, target, but just the hypothetical scenario of the ranges and "perfect flight performance" etc.

But we have this slight problem here. The energy graphics that there are, are against specific kind targets. It is not hypothetical straight firing but the 6000 meter altitude is from targets that is flying toward TOR, at given RCS size, speed, vector and so on altitude for engagement.

The graphic gives a two values for two kind target speeds. Other slower speed offers 6000 m altitude, and other offers 4000 meter altitude. And that is for a requirement intercept probability. As we don't shoot missile just for sake of fun up in the air, they have purpose to hit something. To intercept something.

So what happens if we would interpolate a target that is even slower, if not even stationary?

Does the missile just self-destruct at that 6000 meters, or would the missile fly further distance and altitude, and have a higher intercept change because target is easier?

Is there a potential capability for TOR to engage targets at much higher altitude, but as it is designed primarily to be a defender against other weapons, instead destroying aircrafts. So it is paired with a SAM systems that are part of the another (earlier) layer of the air defense that has longer range and higher altitude, and so on TOR can be set by defense doctrine to simply avoid engaging targets above 6000 meters?

So the situation is that each layer of the defense has their own engagement envelopes, and TOR is given to engage targets below 6000 meters, so it is only calculated to have that performance in charts, yet marked with the longer range and capable to detect, track and engage targets outside of that altitude, but if there are better weapons for that task, why bother?

So simply put, the missile possibly has no reason to self-destruct at 6000 meters, especially if it is already launched and it is intercepting the target, as firing officer would simply keep going.

The firing officer job would be to decide when to shoot and what to shoot. Unless the system is in full automatic mode and controlled remotely over network.

The question is, if there is no technical limit that really would self-destruct the missile always 6000 meters above the TOR itself (again question is that how it is calculated, how that conclusion is come to that when it is past that?) then is it possible that it is simply the doctrinal and example altitude for specific kind targets, and nothing to do with the technical limitations?

How many has watched the track?

TOR launches missile when direct line distance is 9.5 kilometers.

Target is A-10A at 5880 m altitude, TAS is 465 km/h (130 m/s).

The missile self-destruct right after the second phase of rocket motor is ended, 2500 meters left to target, that has just flown above 6060 meters, turning toward the missile at speed of 420 km/h (116 m/s).

The missile has at the moment of self-destruction speed of 2760 km/h (800 m/s).

So no, but that missile would never be self-destructed by any system or by any firing officer.

It requires evidence to be provided that why that is a correct behavior that missile that would almost 100% certainty impact the target, be self-destructed only because 60 meters.

The 6000 meter ceiling is for target that is flying 300 m/s (1080 km/h) so little below Mach 1 (343 m/s, 1234 km/h).

Now we have a target that flies over half slower, coming toward missile, non-maneuvering target, well below the engagement envelope for a faster targets.

Logically problem is a simplicity in the ED programming of the SAM systems engagement logic, just like you GGTharos said in your first post.

It is not about guidance laws.

It is not about missile kinematic/flight capabilities.

It is not about target speeds or counter measurements.

It is not about radar gimbal limits or detection incapabilities.

It is not about missile power state as after 12 seconds total engine burn time it is gone.

It is simply that the TOR is made not to engage targets that are flying above 6000 meters and if target goes there for a one second, the logic says "Kill the missile" no matter what is the situation.

It is black and white situation.

I have been asking that from you from the begin. As you claim it is a 6000 meters, and I have asked from you "why 6000?" because there are various altitudes depending the target.

 

So please explain that why the 6000? Please provide evidence that specifically shows that 9M330 missile can not by any means fly above 6000 meters regardless its energy and power state and target capabilities?

I never claimed it could not fly over 6000m. I claimed there is a self destruct which will engage if the target is over that ceiling limit. If it was 6122m you would cry why is it not 6130!!

Ask the manufacturer for the details for more precise information.

There is a limit and ED put 6000 as per even the documentation you gave (max ceiling). The max alt that the TOR can track with radar is just above 7000m so it MUST ensure a failsafe that does not allow the SAM to reach this altitude.. ever.

look FRI, at some point youre simply being unreasonable with your expectations. it appears nothing short of documentation from MKB Fakel will satisfy you. The defense industry, and in particular "redfor" defense industries, tend to be notoriously opaque when it comes to limitations and shortcomings of weapon systems, and for good reason. its entirely possible russian air defenders dont know the reason for the limitations of their equipment. Its entirely possible that ED has actual documentation but is required to adhere to "published" documentation. I know this from personal experience when trying to share what i know , but finding a lot of it is not publicly releasable. you're perfectly entitled to believe what you want to believe. what i can say is based on my personal experience, and the published information, i believe ED is correct. the OP (nor have you) established any documentation to dispute this fact. this isnt the same as saying they are categorically correct, but i have documentation to support my conjecture, whereas you only have your doubt to support yours.

 

 

It is simply that the TOR is made not to engage targets that are flying above 6000 meters and if target goes there for a one second, the logic says "Kill the missile" no matter what is the situation.

It is black and white situation.

Now you understand!! Because it is flying at 700m/s you do NOT want it to come close to reaching max radar alt of just over 7000m!!

Failsafes. They exist in just about every peice of military hardware.

By the way the TOR missile self destructs BEFORE reaching 6000m in each track. The self destruct sequence happened once the target was over max ceiling.

Uhm... there seems to be a lot of misunderstanding here.

As I understand it, Fri is NOT claiming that the current implementation is wrong, so he doesn't need to prove that.

He IS claiming that it doesn't make sense and at least in my opinion he did prove it.

So, are you claiming that it is correct or that it makes sense?

If the latter then I'm sorry, but you did not make a good case.

You only explained why self-destruct mechanisms exist (which nobody disputed either).

Look at it from another perspective. Why use altitude as a fail-safe at all?

Why not set a timer? You know the burn time of your missile, you know how much energy it will have when the fuel is depleted. It would be easy to calculate when it should self-destruct. Couple it with a self-destruct when it loses contact with the launcher and your good to go.

With altitude limit you create multiple problems for yourself. First, your target can fly just few dozen meters above 6km and you can't do anything to hurt it. Secondly, how does a missile know it has reached 6km? Every missile would need an altimeter and your crew would constantly have to set QNE for each missile. And even then a crew could set it to higher altitude by simply setting a wrong pressure. It just doesn't make sense.

I never claimed it could not fly over 6000m. I claimed there is a self destruct which will engage if the target is over that ceiling limit

Yes and I have acknowledged that, because you are exactly saying that it is not allowed to fly over 6000 meters because that self-destruct mode.

Please provide evidence to that self-destruct altitude mechanism why it happens exactly at 6000 meters for a target that flies below 300 m/s. And as soon target is flying over 300 m/s that self-destruct altimeter is set to 4000 meters for targets that fly between 300-700 m/s.

Why? How? What for?

Or do you simply accept such a thing, that the missile has capabilities to fly and intercept targets well above 6000 meters, but only with a lower probability of intercept depending target vector, altitude and speed?

Faster target = Less probable

Higher altitude = less probable

Less time in area (vector) = less probable

If it was 6122m you would cry why is it not 6130!!

So that is your argument....

Ask the manufacturer for the details for more precise information.

So you have blind faith for ED, about subject that you have no information, no evidence or even logic, just your faith and believes that 6000 meters is the automatic self-destruct altitude for the 9M330.

There is a limit and ED put 6000 as per even the documentation you gave (max ceiling).

Why not to reach that altitude? Please provide even reason what happens when the missile reaches over 6000 meters why it needs to be self-destructed?

Is that 6000 meters from sea level or 6000 meters from ground level?

The documentation that I offered for the explanation, states only a probability of 0.77 for the intercept for a given target size, speed, vector and altitude.

So can you clarify what you think happens when these hypothetical scenarios are applied:

Target that

- Has 0.1 m2 RCS

- Coming toward TOR protected area.

- At speed of 300 m/s.

Target that

- has a 2m2 RCS

- flying parallel to TOR.

- at speed of 50 m/s

The max alt that the TOR can track with radar is just above 7000m so it MUST ensure a failsafe that does not allow the SAM to reach this altitude.. ever.

Do you understand what a inverse square law is, and how it is applied with radars?

Please provide evidence that the TOR radar can not track a target that is just above 7000 meters, when its search radar can track past 25 kilometers?

What is so special up in the air that the radar can't penetrate higher than 7000 meters?

- Is it a atmospheric limitation that if TOR sits 5000 meters sea level that it can't detect targets flying over 2000 meters higher than it?

- Is it a relative altitude limit that it is always just above 7000 meters from TOR that it can't see above it?

- Is it some kind power loss in the radar that when it gets tilted up that it loses power as radar energy can't reach so high altitude and drops down?

- Wasn't it missile logic in it that if the missile doesn't anymore detect the radar signal it self-destruct?

- Why does the TOR command missile to self-destruct at 6000 meters above it if the missile has the logic to self-destruct once the guidance commands are not anymore received?

- You claim that the TOR radar can not track target that is just above 7000 meters, what are the limitations for the radio emissions that is sending the guidance commands for the missile?

So please expand that what is so special in TOR radar that just above 7000 meters it loses its tracking capability, is it by purpose as a some kind LPR (Low-Probability-Of-Intercept) radar? If so, why to use against a PGM? Or does the radar automatically detect the target type and switch modes based that?

Now you understand!! Because it is flying at 700m/s you do NOT want it to come close to reaching max radar alt of just over 7000m!!

 

Failsafes. They exist in just about every peice of military hardware.

It is flying 700 meters per second, and you do NOT want it to come close reaching max radar altitude of just over 7000 meters?

From where did you now get that 7000 meter max altitude for the radar that has over 22 km detection distance for targets over 2 m2?

Why you do not want the missile to fly at 700 m/s?

The missile has a independent trigger mechanism with radio fuse. The radio fuse transmitter is located in the nose of the missile, and the radio fuse receiver is in the central part of the missile.

The missile has one job to do.

1) Fly close to the target

2) Explode

What are the fail safe mechanism that even I have explained to you before you?

- You do not want missile falling uncontrollable on ground. Why you have often inertial fuses that once the missile has no more lift and it is falling and it knows it can't reach the target, it self-destructs.

- It mentioned that you do not want missile to explode above urban area of dense population. That can be programmed to computer that "at these coordinates, do not fly below X threshold" or you can simply draw it even to your radar scope and track the missile altitude so it doesn't follow the target in area it is dangerous to blow.

- Power fuse, the missiles has own source for power that is used for guidance fins, for the proximity/impact fuses, computer etc. The power source has limited time of power, and once it is consumed, the missile can be made to trigger self-destruction as last action regardless of anything else.

- Remote self-destruct by a command. The firing officer receives an information that target is friendly, the target is not to be shot down, whatever. The officer press self-destruct button to blow up the missile.

The officer can as well receive information from the other two officers that missile is not capable to intercept the target in time, so it can be destroyed to start a new missile launch.

The computer can measure that missile has missed the target, and it triggers explosion that has a change that target could receive damage.

- ????? "Target above you X meters is automatic self-destruct regardless missile intercept capabilities"?

The different SAM systems gives a different information to the officer for decision making.

Automatic launch parameters can be given for maximal engagement envelope so that missile will meet the target at the maximum range.

Delayed launch parameters can be given to get target inside No-Escape-Zone, so no matter even if the target turns around, with that speed it has no direction to fly but the missile will reach it.

Variation of those with various expectations that target will not try to escape but will continue in given range or can drop altitude or gain altitude at expected margin.

In DCS that is not really modeled.

Every unit is given a radius when target is automatically detected. Then based skill level there is timer when the unit reacts to the detected threat.

Then is another radius that when target to be engaged, if it is 6000 meters, then once the target reach 6000 meters from the unit, it is to be engaged.

Once the target is outside of 6000 meters, it is to be rejected, even when still detected.

In mission editor you can unit a some scale when to engage target like 80%, but target is rejected at maximum range and not to that given engagement range.

You can as well give values like "higher than altitude" and play with amount and directions etc, but nothing effective really.

This is why one can play around with the SAM systems in very unrealistic manner, just fly so that you will visit their engagement range and they will launch missile at you, then come out and missile is self-destructed because "out of the engagement envelope!". It is nothing more than a circle for engagement range.

It is not maximum engagement range, just a "you are to open fire!" and "cease fire!" border.

Playing around the system is common thing in multiplayer. Why even a partially correctly working IADS is very very much required for the DCS.

Fri, provide evidence instead of conjecture if you want to get anywhere with this. Because the burden of proof is on you here.

Fri, provide evidence instead of conjecture if you want to get anywhere with this. Because the burden of proof is on you here.

This is not a math competition.

You need to provide evidence as you are claiming that TOR destroy its missiles at 6000 meter altitude.

I am questioning your evidence that why it does so.

I don't need to provide any evidence to confirm or deny 6000 meter altitude limit, your task is to provide evidence as you are defending status quo.

Please explain what is the hard limit of the 6000 meters for missile and the 7000 meters for radar to be blind above it?

Fri, you're not doing yourself any favors by being daft. The burden of proof is always on the person who brings a claim in a dispute.

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

So what is your educated guess that why 6000 meters?

Please expand this 6000 meters?

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.

No, he doesn't. You have burden of proof because you are defending status quo. You have made a defensive claim that 6000 meters is correct for missile to self-destruct.

You need to provide evidence that explains that 6000 meter hard limit for missile to fly.

OP, and me, have made questions that WHY DOES IT EXPLODE AT 6000 METERS?

Based to what?

Why to self-destruct a missile that is flying up in the air, toward the target, has enough energy to intercept the target, that is flying well below the specifications of the target speed, G's and range, but only flies 60 meters above the launch altitude?

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

Please clarify the engagement envelope in your opinion in this case?

heres a visual example of that....

Yes, and here is a Bofors 40mm 3P ammunition:

Are you serious?

You are trying to explain a 9M330/9M331 missile self-destruction at 6000 meters by showing how a some projectiles can be programmed or built to explode by time for various other reasons?

Do we go now to WW2 for how the flak works?

Okay, you probability like that as well:

I am not even going to ask from you that how does that explain the 9M330 missile self-destruction at 6000 meter altitude regardless is the target at 1 km or 12 km range from the launch point.

(or how does the search and track radar (as well likely the TV/FLIR as well) just become incapable detect a target just above 7000 meters, regardless it is capable to do so far further distance horizontally).

You have burden of proof because you are defending status quo.

Fri, seriously, you just CAN'T be this thick. If you want something altered, it is your job to produce evidence supporting the changes you want done.

Fri, you're not doing yourself any favors by being daft. The burden of proof is always on the person who brings a claim in a dispute.

Your claim is that 6000 meters is correct.

PLEASE EXPLAIN!

And again. THIS IS NOT A MATHEMATICAL DISPUTE.

Can you understand that?

Someone asks "Why does M9330 self-destruct at 6000 meters as it is claimed in the DCS".

It is your task to provide EVIDENCE that why it is suppose to self-destruct the missile against target:

Altitude over sea level: 6063 meters

True Air Speed: 417 km/h (115 meters per second)

G-forces: 1.3

Turn Radius: 1.2 kilometers

RCS: Pretty large, A-10A as target.

Angle of the target to radar ~45 degrees, turning toward missile and radar.

Why does 9M330 missile to be self-destructed on the moment the target flies above 6000 meters while:

Altitude over sea level: 4620 meters

True Air Speed: 2758 km/h (766 meters per second)

G-forces: 2.5

Vertical Speed: 30200 meters per minute.

The missile would impact the target in 3-5 seconds.

Are you seriously claiming that all is 100% logical and expected?

Please provide evidence to explain the mechanism and reason why the missile is self-destructed at those parameters.

I am not saying that there ain't such limit, or that there is such limit.

I am asking that where is the evidence for that function that missile is self-destructed if target flies at all above 6000 meters?

Now you people are doing claims that:

1) 9M330 missile is not allowed to fly above 6000 meters (yet, you have not provided evidence is it a seal level or ground level or launch point level?)

2) TOR TAR/TTR can't detect targets just above 7000 meters as it is its limit.

3) The 9M330 missile is self-destructed because it would fly at speed over 700 m/s outside that 7000 meter radar altitude limit.

I have even provided more material to this discussion while in search for evidence for that 6000 meter limit that none of you guys can provide.

I can't find that evidence anywhere, but I am not making the claim that 6000 meters limit exist like you are. I am asking that "Why does that 6000 meter limit exist in those parameters?"

"Is that missile disallowed to fly past the 6000 meters? If so, why?".

And all that is heard from you is, 7000 meters radar limit to see above (but can detect aircrafts further than 22 km), 6000 meters is "just so" or how a various projectiles fired has a chemical or electronic time fuse, or how a another long range SAM system has a horizontal area engagement settings that missile wouldn't fly below given altitude that would danger things on ground....

Like can any of you explain what this means:

Fri, seriously, you just CAN'T be this thick. If you want something altered, it is your job to produce evidence supporting the changes you want done.

Please tell me where I am demanding a change, or that I even want a change.

Please, quote me..... Show the post where I specifically demand a change....

WHERE DO I SAY:

"This should be changed so that the 9M330 can engage targets at X altitude as 6000 meters is invalid"?

Fri, you're not doing yourself any favors by being daft. The burden of proof is always on the person who brings a claim in a dispute.

Again, he's not claiming he knows how the system should work. In all of his posts he's just saying (and proving) that it shouldn't work like it is now, because it doesn't make sense.

And he provided a lot of evidence why it doesn't make sense. What more do you want?

Again, he's not claiming he knows how the system should work. In all of his posts he's just saying (and proving) that it shouldn't work like it is now, because it doesn't make sense.

I am requesting them to explain with evidence that 6000 meters limit because they are claiming it is correct, and it just is odd. I am not proving anything else than the missile has clearly kinematic capability to fly higher, but evidence is lacking from everyone that why missile is self-destructed on the moment the target flies above 6000 meters regardless it would be well inside the public specification of the target parameters.

Difference is that I don't say "It shouldn't work like that!", but "Why it works like that?".

I need information for the claim "6000 meters is the limit".

And no one is providing any evidence for it, making the TOR very very special compared to other known SAM systems.

Now I have heard a new information that just above 7000 meters is the limit of the radar to detect targets anymore, and TOR can't allow missile to fly out of that radar range. Yet by the specifications it can detect targets far further than that, and TAR even have 50% probability of detection for 0.1 m2 target at 12 km range. But can't see past 7 kilometers above?

So I must ask them, why can then the radar detect target and guide missile past 7 kilometers horizontally?

When the TOR 6000 meter self-destruction hard altitude limit has not been supported with any evidence, it has been covered with all kind other claims that are now in conflict with the all kind other topics like radar basic functionality.

 

Like can any of you explain what this means:

 

[ATTACH]241726[/ATTACH]

Yes, i can. Its all about closing speed, a TBM moves faster than an ARM or an AGM (its unclear which is being represented), and all of those move faster than an ABT

With a similar detection range, the TBM will have travelled much closer to its target than an ABT so the intercept point is much closer

Yes, i can. Its all about closing speed, a TBM moves faster than an ARM or an AGM (its unclear which is being represented), and all of those move faster than an ABT

With a similar detection range, the TBM will have travelled much closer to its target than an ABT so the intercept point is much closer

So it is all about the target altitude, vector and speed... that creates the target envelope, relative to your own missile characteristics?

And that graphic is not about detection range, it is about engagement range. The detection for all those has already done at further distances and taken to tracking by various other means.

So I assume that you mean that all those are already known at the maximum possible detection and tracking range and engagement is to be done at the earliest possible moment based the target envelope?

Edit:

Let's add a video link to that situation if others don't know what is the scenario:

(need to check can it be added to first page even).

Right then. Well, let's just say that I'm waiting for the people in the know to comment again and we'll then see how this develops.