More realistic Tor SAM missile selfdestruct-logic

What more do you want?

Well, a pint of bitter would be nice. Thanks for asking.

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.

You've misread my statement, I don't know it that's deliberate or accidental.

For any given detection range, the LNIP (air defense equivalent of CCIP) will be closer on the fast moving target than it is on the slow mover. I never said that the graph was about detection range.

This discussion went way way way off the rails. Even facts directly from IEMZ Kupol would not be enough. He would be SCREAMING WHY WHY WHY!!! This is worse than my 3 year old.

I'm bowing out. I think this should be closed.

i was pretty much out for the same reasons. i only stepped back in when he asked what a graph means, but really this is like discussing update cycles with jasonbirder (who has been remarkably silent lately)

You've misread my statement, I don't know it that's deliberate or accidental.

As I said, "I assume", just to point you the fact that you are not claiming so unless I misread you that you did.

For any given detection range, the LNIP (air defense equivalent of CCIP) will be closer on the fast moving target than it is on the slow mover. I never said that the graph was about detection range.

And....? Please continue...

Faster target = intercept capability is closer.

Slower target = intercept capability is further.

Correct or false?

Target moves slower = engagement envelope is larger.

Target moves faster = engagement envelope is smaller.

Correct or false?

Target moves away = engagement envelope is smaller.

Target moves toward = engagement envelope is larger.

Correct or false?

Explain as best you can this:

Why you can always intercept a target that is flying at 6000 meters above your launch altitude, but never a target that is above that, like 6001 meters?

Regardless the target vector, the target speed, your missile energy etc.

Why only the 6000 meters is a hard coded limit that missile is never allowed to fly higher than that at any range?

By the specs the 9M330 is capable to intercept targets at 12 km range and 6 km altitude that is moving 300 m/s.

By the specs the 9M330 is capable to intercept targets at 5 km range and 4 km altitude that is moving 700 m/s.

Please explain what should happen when target speed, vector and altitude changes?

Like let's say that the target flies toward TOR:

range of 4 km

altitude 7000 meters

speed of 75 m/s (270 km/h)

Why is TOR destroying the missile exactly after launch, just above itself?

This discussion went way way way off the rails. Even facts directly from IEMZ Kupol would not be enough. He would be SCREAMING WHY WHY WHY!!! This is worse than my 3 year old. .

What facts? There are no presented any facts about self-destruction mechanism that will destroy the missile once it flies exactly 6001 meters above the TOR launch altitude.

I have asked those evidences from YOU and many others, you claim you have them. You claim that those exist.

WHERE ARE THOSE?!

What facts? There are no presented any facts about self-destruction mechanism that will destroy the missile once it flies exactly 6001 meters above the TOR launch altitude.

 

I have asked those evidences from YOU and many others, you claim you have them. You claim that those exist.

 

WHERE ARE THOSE?!

Look no matter what, you will never accept the facts.

No one ever said the limit was exactly 6000m. In fact in the A10A track it happened when the A10 was still climbing over 6300mm

I don't know the EXACT altitude that starts the self destruct sequence but there is one. Whether you accept it or not, I don't care anymore.

The limit is going to be a NEVER EXCEED limit. It will be hard coded. No matter how much crying, begging and whining you do, will not change the fact that there is a hard coded NEVER EXCEED limit.

Look no matter what, you will never accept the facts.

What facts? Please provide evidence first.

No one ever said the limit was exactly 6000m. In fact in the A10A track it happened when the A10 was still climbing over 6300mm

If you would even read you would understand.

I have requested you to explain that why it is 6000 meters that is claimed to be auto self-destruction, by you and by many others.

I even asked clarification for you, and others, that is it a 6000 meters sea level or 6000 meters ground level, or 6000 meters of the TOR.

Well, I have found it myself, as you have not been able to provide any evidence that such self-destruction mode exist, that it is in matter of fact exactly 6000 meters above the TOR altitude.

So if you place TOR at 141 m ASL. And you have a target flying 6142 m ASL. The TOR will automatically self-destruct the missile on the moment after its engine should start.

BUt if you have target flying 6141 m ASL or below (so you would now very clearly understand, that is exactly 6000 meters or below the TOR altitude position), then TOR does not self-destruct the missile but lets it to fly at the target.

No matter of any range to target in the engagement envelope, the 6000 meters above the TOR is mystical limitation that will result to 9M330 missile self-destruction, regardless its capabilities to intercept the target.

I don't know the EXACT altitude that starts the self destruct sequence but there is one. Whether you accept it or not, I don't care anymore.

So you don't know, that has come very clear already.

But, you still claim that there is a self-destruct sequence for the altitude, that has found out to be exactly 6000 meters above the TOR, so please provide the evidence that you now claim to be there that what is that self-destruct sequence for that 6000 meters?

Why the missile gets self-destructed if target flies at 6001 meters, but not if it flies at 5999 meters or even 6000 meters above TOR? REGARDLESS target flying or even hovering!

You can even float a hot air balloon 6001 meters above the TOR and IT IS INCAPABLE TO ENGAGE IT!

But if that balloon would drop altitude just a meter so it is exactly 6000 meters above TOR, it would get blown to pieces regardless is it at 12 km from it or 1 km from it!

WHY?

HOW?

Please provide evidence for that self-destruction function that you so well known and talk about?

The limit is going to be a NEVER EXCEED limit. It will be hard coded. No matter how much crying, begging and whining you do, will not change the fact that there is a hard coded NEVER EXCEED limit.

Where is that?

How you know it exists?

How do you know is it coded, or is wired?

Is it in the TOR firing computer logic or is it in the 9M330 missile?

How difficult it is for you to provide the evidence that it exist and why it is there?

You clearly claim to know the facts, so please provide the evidence for it!

Seems that you do not know anything about any self-destruction modes in TOR or 9M330 missile.

You don't hold any facts or any evidence or know where to find those for a such claimed 6000 meter "hard coded" "never exceed" limit.

You have only blind faith that it is so. Nothing more.

Hey Dagger. He'll never get it anyway, so you better just save your breath here.

You have only blind faith that it is so

And according to you, so does ED. So go rant at their guys if this really irks you so much, because no amount of sheer knowledge seems to affect your foamy-mouthed stance one bit.

Hey Dagger. He'll never get it anyway, so you better just save your breath here.

Yeah I'll leave it with just one last comment.

No matter what the EXACT altitude is, would be a matter of Russian military secrecy, (same for the US counterparts) so Fri13 your fishing expedition will fail.

The game models a limit, whether is matches the real world limit, no one here or at ED will ever divulge that information.

You can just be sure that there is in fact a NEVER EXCEED limit for all weapons in game and those armed with a self destruct mechanism, will detonate itself once that limit is reached (REGARDLESS how close the target is!!!!!!!!).

I would really suggest you study up on real world weapon failsafes that are integrated in just about all modern missiles. These failsafe self-destruct sequences, are all classified, but you can be guaranteed they exist. They will be engaged when a NEVER EXCEED limit is reached. That is a fact, and I will not provide any info about them on here as it would break forum rules and possibly break certain laws. I highly suggest you do your own research.

So you would be better off contacting the Russian manufacturer to take up your concerns with them.

Hey Dagger. He'll never get it anyway, so you better just save your breath here.

So you are as well unwilling to provide evidence....

That has come clear as well.

No matter what the EXACT altitude is, would be a matter of Russian military secrecy, (same for the US counterparts) so Fri13 your fishing expedition will fail.

So you have never had any information about any self-destruction functionalities and limits in TOR / 9M330.

The game models a limit, whether is matches the real world limit, no one here or at ED will ever divulge that information.

So you finally have come to conclusion that the TOR missile self-destruction mode is unrealistic, and you agree with the OP.

You can just be sure that there is in fact a NEVER EXCEED limit for all weapons in game and those armed with a self destruct mechanism, will detonate itself once that limit is reached (REGARDLESS how close the target is!!!!!!!!).

Please provide evidence.... *sigh* yeah, you don't have any evidence that 9M330 has 6000 meter NEVER EXCEED limit... You can't even read the specifications nor understand the energy tables, the DCS limitations of ultra simple SAM modeling etc.

So you would be better off contacting the Russian manufacturer to take up your concerns with them.

So you can't do anything else than just try to hide that you never knew anything, you never understood anything and you just can't admit that the OP is exactly right; 6000 meters above the TOR own altitude for 9M330 self-destruction is not realistic.

You even pulled out of the hat a mystical "radar can't see just above 7000 meters so it must destroy the missile before it reach that "no radar signal" limit" when you couldn't give any evidence that any self-destruction function for the upward altitude interception exist.

And then you started to demand that I must get the evidence from the manufacturer.... As that would be your task as you are defending the 6000 meter self-destruction mode that is very very odd.

If you would have read and understood the material there is, you would have come to conclusion that there is no such thing (because lack of evidence) as "altitude self-destruction limit" no matter how you scream and believe there is.

But instead you have resolved to name calling while trying to avoid providing any evidence for your claims.

Conclusion you should have arrive is: The missile would be able fly as high as it has energy, it has power or the computer calculates that interception is possible on locked target (based target and missile speed, vectors and altitudes, if launched with lock).

The common self-destruction modes are:

1) Missile is about to run out of battery (the missile control mechanism and computer is about to shut off, in other words the missile is going dud).

2) Missile detects it has no lift and controllability for the commands (in other words, missile is falling from the sky in uncontrolled manner)

3) The missile is commanded remotely for self-destruct by someone (target was misidentified as hostile, missile is reaching a area where it is not allowed to explode etc)

4) The computer guiding the missile calculates that missile is at closest possible distance of the target. It and target speed, vector and altitude situation can't lead to interception so best change to destroy target anymore is to explode.

5) The missile has not received any guidance for X seconds and it doesn't detect any target to lock on (IR/HOJ etc seekers)

But because lack of evidence that there would be among others such a self-destruction mode as:

X) The missile is about to intercept an target, destruction of missile is automated ASAP to protect the target because missile is about to fly too high and too fast, through a some artificial altitude distance of the launcher (not the ASL).

That is still the very interesting claim from you.

What ED should do, is to remove that artificial 6000 meter over TOR limitation, and let the missile fly as high or as far as it possibly can, until the usual self-destruction trigger mechanism are met:

1) Doesn't have speed, vector or altitude to intercept the target.

2) Is about to run out of battery/air.

3) Is commanded to be destroyed (IFF malfunction etc).

4) Guidance signal is lost for X time.

So if there would be a hovering helicopter 7500 meters above the TOR, or gliding A-10 at 220 km/h speed at 7000 meters altitude at 4 km distance, the TOR would keep guiding the 9M330 at them.... Not to blow them out as soon as they are ejected from the container.

So you now want SAMs to ignore all max ceilings until someone produces information from the manufacturer on how exactly the failsafes work?? Until then we keep the current limitations (as stated by the manufacturers) as is. Nothing wrong with them. You really seem to be living in an alternate reality.

Good luck on your endeavor to get classified military information publicly released on ED forums.

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

But is the missile smart enough to know it lost it's downlink only, while still receiving uplink?

Downlink and uplink could be on different frequencies and isolated between each other in terms of logic, but they can be ofcourse smart, something like a web connection, where it needs a handshake to make a good 2-way connection or nothing.

If missles are downlinking anything over radio at all, or only receiving, or only modern ones both?

But IDK I'm not yet familiar at all with missle stuff.

But is the missile smart enough to know it lost it's downlink only, while still receiving uplink?

 

Downlink and uplink could be on different frequencies and isolated between each other in terms of logic, but they can be ofcourse smart, something like a web connection, where it needs a handshake to make a good 2-way connection or nothing.

 

If missles are downlinking anything over radio at all, or only receiving, or only modern ones both?

 

But IDK I'm not yet familiar at all with missle stuff.

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

here is an article from cia webpage on missile telemetry. i havent had the time to read thru it to see how applicible it is, ive got some things around the house i need to take care of. enjoy!

https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/kent-csi/vol8no4/html/v08i4a03p_0001.htm

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

 

here is an article from cia webpage on missile telemetry. i havent had the time to read thru it to see how applicible it is, ive got some things around the house i need to take care of. enjoy!

https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/kent-csi/vol8no4/html/v08i4a03p_0001.htm

I used to work on a UAV that used 3 different frequencies. 1 up, 1 down and 1 video down, plus it needed a minimum of 4 GPS signals.

The heartbeat was set during warmup, to 600 ms on land and 200ms naval ops.

It also had failsafes with "never exceed" parameters, just like modern day SAMs have!

a heartbeat is a pretty universal thing, but didnt know for certain whether it was used in missiles or not

what kind of UAVs did you work with? I remember installing some machinery at the IAI plant in tel aviv and saw a couple UAVs being crated up there, but couldnt get close

the closest i have isnt very advanced at all, but i do have a target drone, id love to get it flying again one of these days(its been shot at once before) :

heres a video on the company

a heartbeat is a pretty universal thing, but didnt know for certain whether it was used in missiles or notat the IAI plant in tel aviv and saw a couple UAVs being crated up there, but couldnt get close

 

 

the closest i have isnt very advanced at all, but i do have a target drone, id love to get it flying again one of these days(its been shot at once before) :

 

heres a video on the company

 

Nice! Yeah I would have loved to work with the Heron!! They wanted IFR rating even just for sensor operator.

The one I worked with was kind of like the pioneer but much better. Had around 12 hour flight time and range of close to 100 kms (mostly operated around 40 kms from ground control station) but needed line of sight of course.

You are one of the only people to ever use the term drone correctly !!!! Since you worked with them then you know the term drone is a RC vehicle (air land or sea) used as target practice for weapons system training or calibration.

I hate the term drone when used to describe a UAV. Some UAVs are more complicated then some GA aircraft!!

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

I have come to posession of the official TOR-M1 training manual.

And you are right with your observation, there is no such thing as "self-destruct at X altitude".

It is just that some players feels threatened that they would start having increased challenge against ground targets and will be defending with all their powers to keep a unrealistic benefit on their side, even if it requires never admitting that they have no information or no evidence to back-up status-quo.

But is the missile smart enough to know it lost it's downlink only, while still receiving uplink?

 

Downlink and uplink could be on different frequencies and isolated between each other in terms of logic, but they can be ofcourse smart, something like a web connection, where it needs a handshake to make a good 2-way connection or nothing.

There is no datalink communication from the 9M330/9M331 to the TOR. The missile is not under a TVM guidance. The system is simple with radio beacons at the missile rear for tracking them and otherwise very robust radio command system and extremely ECM proofed.

If missles are downlinking anything over radio at all, or only receiving, or only modern ones both?

 

Larger missile systems like S-200 and such uses TVM method, and then some other modern small missiles like AIM-120D has a downlink to system where launcher can turn away and ie. wingman, ground station or even AWACS can keep updating missile with target position over Link-16 datalink network, there are as well reports that missiles like R-23 had a similar capability by simply switching the guiding fighter radars, so one fighter accelerate a head for maximum missile launch parameters, launches the missile and then turns away and escapes, while a slower fighter at rear keeps guiding the missile from safe range of the engaged threat.

 

But in case of 9M330 and 9M331 missiles it is not so complex.

 

But IDK I'm not yet familiar at all with missle stuff.

 

Well, a good start is to at least try to figure out and have interest to learn more. Isn't it?

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

The training manual explains well all the codes that can be transmitted to the missile and how all the missile sensors and self-checks works, including self-destruction function, that is nothing like claimed by you people here. There is no altitude limitation or like that, the missile is given full performance capabilities to engage targets well above 6000 meters as that is not any self-destruction ceiling.

Example, currently in DCS if you lock on the target at altitude and the game logic says "In Range" and you launch, that logic is given even if the target flies 6001 meters above TOR altitude that is hard-coded in game for "out of range" parameter and that is enough to cause missile self-destruct on the moment it is out of the tube, exploding straight above you and not even taking a maneuvering, and that is completely unrealistic.

Alone this function in the game should have raised obvious eyebrows that something is not right.

As anyone would know that if the computer calculating the target engagement envelope would detect that target is not possible to be intercepted, then it wouldn't either allow missile be wasted automatically (unless commanded) or if it does allow launch to continue, it wouldn't destroy it just after launch just to remind you "I can't intercept that!", as that is nothing more than an expensive notification "Not possible to intercept". And any dumb engineer would have simply installed a light bulb in the control panel instead that. So in the game now, instead a $3 (well, military grade electronics are not cheap really) light bulb, you have one missile destroyed just 500 meters above you, and your friendly troops that some has just might have died or wounded because your missile exploded in almost perfect air-detonation.

Some might consider that is hazardous for human beings and equipment around you.

But hey, that would be the logic as stated in the real manual, and is not allowed to happen and there is a safety mechanism so that wouldn't happen.

But let's just pretend that it is a game, and how it is "perfectly correct as it is" yadda yadda yadda.... No matter about the logic, no matter of the facts that someone has the real manual for the system. All can just keep going for personal insults against someone and claim that someone needs to "proof" status quo, because asking evidence to explain why status quo is correct, is wrong.

I let you all just to circle around hypothesis and guesses drawn from completely another things.... As you had no interest at all to find out why the current system works as is and find an answer is it correct (or not).

There's not even one single unit in this outstanding simulation that behaves like the real thing. So where's the point? But - please lets bring this to an end by saying: "Yes, you are right!"

There's not even one single unit in this outstanding simulation that behaves like the real thing. So where's the point?

It is not that perfection is a goal, the purpose is to achieve better of yourself and try to best yourself again, and again, and again.

We do not need a perfect simulator, we just need that obvious problems, errors and mistakes are at least tried to be improved to be as good as possible.

It took for years to get changes to Air-to-Air missiles, and they have changed a lot how air combat is done. But that same thing needs to be done for Surface-to-Air missiles, as DCS is so much about Air-to-Ground missions.

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

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